Abstract
ABSTRACTObjective: The aim of the study was to verify and compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions obtained using two intraoral scanners and three scanning methodologies. Methods: A resin model created with dental 3-D printing was scanned by a reference scanner (Zfx Evolution - Zimmer Biomet, Palm Beach Gardens, FL) in order to obtain a 3D reference; the same resin model was then scanned with two different intraoral scanners (Zfx IntraScan and Carestream 3600 - CS 3600®, Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA) using: Technique A (from tooth #27 up to tooth #17); Technique B (from tooth #11 up to tooth #17 and then from tooth #21 up to tooth #27) and Technique C (from tooth #22 up to tooth #17, and then from tooth #12 up to tooth #27 - the MeshLab software v. 1.3.3 was then used to match the two scans). The scans obtained were superimposed over the reference scan by means of a software, and the volumetric discrepancies were calculated. Results: The mean results for the Zfx Intrascan scanner were: Technique A = 302.47 ± 37.42 µm; Technique B = 180.45 ± 29.86 µm; Technique C = 147.34 ± 28.23 µm. The mean results for the Carestream 3600 scanner were: Technique A = 303.59 ± 40.20 µm; Technique B = 181.53 ± 29.61 µm; Technique C = 142.28 ± 35.33 µm. Technique C, used by both scanners, produced less volumetric discrepancies compared to the other techniques. Conclusions: The scanning technique had a statistically significant effect on the quality of the scan (p< 0.0001), whereas the scanner did not present any significant influence (p= 0.91).
Highlights
Successful orthodontic treatments rely largely on the careful treatment planning based on the accuracy of detail reproduction in dental impressions.[1]Digital impressions are becoming increasingly popular because of many associated advantages, including faster turnaround time, real-time feedback for higher precision, a reduction in remakes, and improved workflow
The results showed that Technique A was the least accurate scanning technique, while Technique C was the most accurate one
The scanning technique influenced the quality of the scan (p < 0.0001), whereas the scanning system didn’t have any significant effect on it (p = 0.91)
Summary
Digital impressions are becoming increasingly popular because of many associated advantages, including faster turnaround time, real-time feedback for higher precision, a reduction in remakes, and improved workflow. Intraoral scanning can be interrupted if necessary, to let the patient rest.[5] There is a reduction in chair time as the impression procedure is faster and more effective.[4,8] the use of intraoral scanners eliminates the risk of wax bite distortion because bite registration is taken with the patient’s teeth in centric occlusion.[9] Digital study models can potentially improve the workflow of a dental practice, ensuring a high degree of standardization.[4]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
