Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the surface topography and the precision measurements of different intraoral and extraoral digital scanners. A reference model of a maxillary arch with four implant analogs was prepared and scanned by three intraoral and two extraoral scanners. The reference model was scanned fifteen times with each digital scanning system, investigating the surface topography and precision measurements for the same-arch and cross-arch measurements. The data was exported to 3D inspection and mesh-processing software (GOM Inspect, Braunschweig, Germany). Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with the Tukey method for pairwise comparisons. The effect of parameters on generating the surface topography was analyzed by Univariate Linear Regression Analysis. Of the scanner systems evaluated, iTero (IT) exhibited the most number of triangulation points, followed by Trios 3 Shape (TR) and Straumann Cares (SC). There were no significant differences observed in the surface topography when comparing flat and contoured surfaces, the anterior and posterior position, and interproximal areas. For the precision measurement in the same quadrant, no statistical difference was noted between intra- and extraoral scanners. However, the extraoral scanners showed substantially higher precision measurements for the cross-arch measurement. Surface topography did not correlate to precision. Rather, precision correlated with the scanning mechanism. For a quadrant scanning, both intraoral and extraoral scanners are recommended, but extraoral scanners are recommended for a full-arch scanning.
Highlights
Making conventional impressions and fabricating gypsum models involve clinical and laboratory procedures that may result in cumulative errors
The conventional approaches of a physical impression made with an elastomeric impression material may affect the treatment outcomes, including accuracy, efficiency, and patients’ comfort level [1]
The conventional impression technique has been considered the gold standard in dentistry mainly due to cost-effectiveness [2]
Summary
Making conventional impressions and fabricating gypsum models involve clinical and laboratory procedures that may result in cumulative errors. These processing errors are largely inherent to the handling and properties of dental materials. The conventional approaches of a physical impression made with an elastomeric impression material may affect the treatment outcomes, including accuracy, efficiency, and patients’ comfort level [1]. Despite these limitations, the conventional impression technique has been considered the gold standard in dentistry mainly due to cost-effectiveness [2]. Technological advancement in 3D imaging and the application of CAD/CAM has
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
