Differences In Trueness Research Articles

Comparing the Accuracy of Conventional Gypsum and 3D-Printed Dental Casts Using Three-Dimensional Analysis.

Dental impressions and casts play a critical role in dental care, facilitating diagnoses and the fabrication of prostheses. Traditional methods of fabrication involve elastomeric materials that are more prone to errors and patient discomfort. Digital advancements offer promising alternatives, yet their accuracy and applicability to military dentistry remain under-explored. This study evaluates the accuracy of digital casts produced with material available in the Military Health System compared to conventional methods. Using a digital (n = 10) and analog (n = 10) methodology casts were fabricated from a reference cast (n = 1). The reference and cast samples were scanned with a reference scanner to generate stereolithography files. These files were used to generate full arch, single crown, fixed dental prosthesis, and inlay digital casts which were then compared using a three-dimensional (3D) comparison software to evaluate accuracy. Root mean square values were obtained, giving a quantitative evaluation of the deviation of each sample from the reference cast. Statistical analysis consisted of a Shapiro-Wilk and Levene test to account for homogeneity of variances in each group. An ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test were used to determine differences in accuracy among the full arch and a two-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test evaluated differences in trueness among the casts of the individual preparations. Analog full arch casts had an average root mean square of 106 ±19.18 µm when examining trueness and 12 ±2.58 µm for precision. Digital full arch casts had an average root mean square of 51.9 ±5.39 µm when examining trueness and 4.2 ±1.57 µm for precision. Overall digital casts surpassed analog counterparts in accuracy. Fixed dental prostheses were found to be the only group, which showed no statistically significant difference between digital and analog. These findings validate the potential of digital workflows in enhancing the speed and accuracy of dental care in the Military Health System, while underscoring the need for further exploration and refinement in specific clinical contexts.

Effect of Virtual Casts Superimposition Strategies on the Estimation of IOS Accuracy in Complete-Arch Scans.

This study aims to assess the impact of three different strategies of best-fit (BF) alignments of virtual casts on the estimation of the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) in complete-arch scans. A maxillary typodont, modified with an Implant Scan Body (ISB) in the retroincisive area, was digitized using a desktop scanner (SW Optor Lab) to obtain a reference STL file. The typodont was then scanned 10 times using two IOSs (Trios4, Itero). Each STL file obtained from the IOS was superimposed onto the reference cast using three methods in CloudCompare: full-arch BF (BF-full), BF at the starting tooth (BF-tooth), and BF at the ISB (BF-ISB). Discrepancies from the reference were recorded, and trueness and precision were compared for each method. Statistical analysis with the Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test was performed (α = 0.05). The Kruskall-Wallis test (p ⟨0.05) revealed statistically significant differences in trueness and precision among the alignment methods. Post Hoc multiple comparison test p-values were all below the critical alpha value. Differences in BF methods lead to significantly different accuracy values of IOS complete-arch scans as different virtual casts' alignment discrepancy. BF-full had the highest accuracy followed by BF-ISB and BF-tooth.

Are Sleeves Necessary in Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery? A Comparative InVitro Analysis.

This study aims to examine differences in trueness and precision between surgical guides with (S) and without sleeves (SL). A secondary aim was to assess the impact of the sleeve-to-bone distance. Mandible replicas (n = 120) were printed from an STL file obtained from a clinical CBCT. The mandibles were divided into sleeved (S, n = 60) and sleeveless (SL, n = 60) groups, each further divided into three categories (n = 20 each) with different heights from the guide to the implant platform: 2 mm (H2), 4 mm (H4), or 6 mm (H6). Digital planning and surgical guide design were done for a 4.1 × 10 mm implant for site #30. Post-op positions were captured using a scan body and lab scanner. Angular deviation was the primary outcome, with 3D and 2D deviations as secondary parameters. Statistical analysis included two-sample t-tests, and one-way and two-way ANOVA. Group S (2.41 ± 1.41°) had significantly greater angular deviation than Group SL (1.65 ± 0.93°; p = 0.0001). Angular deviation increased with sleeve-to-bone distance. H2 deviations were 1.48 ± 0.80° (S) vs. 1.02 ± 0.45° (SL; p < 0.05), H4: 2.36 ± 1.04° (S) vs. 1.48 ± 0.79° (SL; p < 0.05), H6: 3.37 ± 0.67° (S) vs. 2.46 ± 0.89° (SL; p < 0.05). 3D deviation at the implant platform was 0.36 ± 0.17 mm (S) vs. 0.30 ± 0.15 mm (SL; p < 0.05) and at the apex 0.74 ± 0.34 mm (S) vs. 0.53 ± 0.31 mm (SL; p < 0.01). Group SL at H2 had the smallest inter-implant distance (0.53 ± 0.37°), while Group S at H4 had the largest (1.20 ± 0.84°; p < 0.05). Sleeveless guides are more accurate than sleeved guides, and angular deviation is influenced by the distance from the guide to the implant platform.

Accuracy and clinical fit of milled versus rapid prototyped orthognathic surgical splints

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become an integral part of orthognathic surgery. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating accuracy of orthognathic surgical splints fabricated from subtractive milling versus additive 3D printing. The primary aim of this in-vitro study was to compare the differences in trueness between milled and 3D-printed splints, while the secondary aim was to compare the differences in clinical fit of these splints. A sample of eight patients was selected, and STL files of the final orthognathic surgical splint were used to fabricate three splints for each of the eight cases. The first splint was fabricated by subtractive milling (SM), whereas the second and third splints were 3D printed with Digital Light Processing (DLP) and Laser Stereolithography (SLA), respectively. Paired superimposition of scans was performed using a reference model. The clinical fit of the splints to the printed models was also assessed. The mean root mean square (RMS) deviations for the SM, SLA, and DLP were 0.11 ± 0.02, 0.16 ± 0.02 and 0.14 ± 0.02 respectively. The post-hoc analysis showed that the SM splints had the highest accuracy (p < 0.01). However, DLP splints showed the best clinical fit, followed by SM and SLA. In conclusion, splints fabricated by SM were more accurate than those fabricated by 3D printing, although this difference may not be clinically significant. The site, rather than the magnitude of the errors, may have a greater effect on the clinical usability of splints. In general, SM and DLP splints demonstrated a good clinical fit and were suitable for the fabrication of surgical splints.

Influence of scanning pattern on accuracy, time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans: A clinical study

ObjectivesTo measure the influence of scanning pattern on the accuracy, time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral implant scans. MethodsA maxillary edentulous patient with 7 implants was selected. The reference implant cast was obtained using conventional methods (7Series Scanner). Four groups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the complete-arch implant scans by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4): manufacturer's recommended (Occlusal-Buccal-Lingual (OBL)), zig-zag (Zig-zag), circumferential (Circumf), and novel pattern that included locking an initial occlusal scan (O-Lock group) (n = 15). Scanning time and number of photograms were recorded. The linear and angular measurements were used to assess scanning accuracy. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness, scanning time, and number of photograms. The Levene test was selected to assess precision (α=0.05). ResultsStatistically significant differences in trueness were detected among OBL, Zig-zag, Circumf, and O-Lock regarding linear discrepancy (P<0.01), angular discrepancy (P<0.01), scanning time (P<0.01), and number of photograms (P<0.01). The O-Lock (63 ± 20 µm) showed the best linear trueness with statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) with Circumferential (86 ± 16 µm) and OBL (87 ± 19 µm) groups. The O-Lock (93.5 ± 13.4 s, 1080 ± 104 photograms) and Circumf groups (102.9 ± 15.1 s, 1112 ± 179 photograms) obtained lower scanning times (P < 0.01) and number of photograms (P < 0.01) than OBL (130.3 ± 19.4 s, 1293 ± 161 photograms) and Zig-zag (125.7 ± 22.1 s, 1316 ± 160 photograms) groups. ConclusionsThe scanning patterns tested influenced scanning accuracy, time, and number of photograms of the complete-arch scans obtained by using the IOS tested. The zig-zag and O-Lock scanning patterns are recommended to obtain complete-arch implant scans when using the selected IOS.

Digital Evaluation of Trueness and Precision of Modern Impression Materials in Implant- Retained Mandibular Overdentures.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the dimensional accuracy, trueness, and precision of vinyl siloxane ether (VSXE) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression materials using different impression techniques. A three-dimensional (3D) printed mandibular model with implants and metal rods served as the reference model. Impressions were taken in custom trays, resulting in four groups: PVS-closed-tray, VSXE-closed-tray, PVS-open-tray, and VSXE-open-tray. The reference model and impressions were scanned and analyzed using 3D analysis software to assess the trueness and precision within each group. There was significant difference in trueness between the groups, with PVS closed tray showing a higher deviation than VSXE-closed-tray and PVS-open-tray. VSXE-open-tray had the lowest deviation, which was statistically significant. In terms of precision, PVS-closed-tray showed the highest deviation, while no significant differences were found among the other groups. VSXE impression material with an open tray technique consistently demonstrated the highest levels of accuracy and precision. Conversely, PVS impression material with a closed tray technique yielded less favorable results. Better understanding of trueness and precision of new impression materials with new impression techniques will increase their clinical effectiveness.

Effect of Different Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Bite Registration in Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Arches

ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to use in vitro models to examine the bite registration accuracy of four different intraoral scanners (IOS) for edentulous maxillary and mandibular arches. The objective was to assess the trueness and precision of the IOS and determine if there were significant differences between them. MethodsAn Asiga Max UV 3D printer was used to print maxillary and mandibular edentulous models based on the shape of Frasaco models (artificial dental arch models). Four dental implants were placed symmetrically in both models using Straumann BLT RC implants. Digital impressions were taken with Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4, and Medit i500 intraoral scanners (n = 10 for each IOS). Digital bite registrations were made, and scanning data was exported in STL format. The accuracy of the interarch distance (the distance between the metrological spheres attached to the mandibular and maxillary models) was estimated for each IOS. ResultsThe results showed significant differences in trueness and precision between different IOS (p <.05), except Medit i500 and Trios 3 (p >.05). Primescan provided the most accurate results, followed by Medit i500, Trios 3, and Trios 4, respectively. Conclusionswithin the limitations of this study, the IOS type affects the accuracy of interocclusal bite registration in in vitro design. Only Primescan achieved clinically acceptable accuracy for the interocclusal recording of edentulous arches. Clinical RelevanceThe comparison of the accuracy of bite registration between different intraoral scanners will help increase the efficiency of the clinical application of digitalized interarch registration.

Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions–An in vitro study

ObjectivesTo assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans. MethodsAn experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure. ResultsIn the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ± 71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively. ConclusionsScanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required. Clinical significanceScanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.

Palatal vault configuration and its influence on intraoral scan time and accuracy in completely edentulous arches: a prospective clinical study.

The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the influence of palatal vault forms on accuracy and speed of intraoral (IO) scans in completely edentulous cases. Based on the palatal vault form, participants were divided into three equal groups (n = 10 each); Class I: moderate; Class II: deep; Class III: flat palatal vault. A reference model was created for each patient using polyvinylsiloxane impression material. The poured models were digitized using an extraoral scanner. The resultant data were imported as a solid CAD file into 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018; Gom GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) and aligned using the software's coordinate system to determine its X, Y, and Z axes. Five digital impressions (DIs) of maxilla were captured for each patient using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the resultant Standard Tessellation Language (STL) scan files served as test models. Trueness was evaluated by calculating arithmetic mean deviation (AMD) of the vault area between reference and test files while precision was evaluated by calculating AMD between captured scans to measure repeatability of scan acquisition. The scan time taken for each participant was also recorded. There was no significant difference in trueness and precision among the groups (P = .806 and .950, respectively). Average scan time for Class I and III palatal vaults was 1 min 13 seconds and 1 min 37 seconds, respectively, while class II deep palatal vaults showed the highest scan time of 5 mins. Palatal vault form in edentulous cases has an influence on scan time. However, it does not have a substantial impact on the accuracy of the acquired scans.

Impact of color temperature and illuminance of ambient light conditions on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans.

The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of color temperature and illuminance of ambient light on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in complete-arch implant scans. An edentulous model with six implants and scan bodies was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (DW-7-140; Dental Wings) to obtain a reference mesh. Fifteen scans were performed employing two intraoral scanners (Trios 4;3Shape A/S and i700; Medit Co) at two illuminances (500 and 1000 lux) and three color temperatures (3200, 4400, and 5600 K). Scanning accuracy was measured by using a 3D metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05). Significant differences in trueness and precision values were found among the different IOSs under the same ambient lighting condition and among the different lighting conditions for a given IOS (p < .05) except for trueness in i700 groups (p > .05). The influence on the accuracy of color temperature and illuminance varied depending on the intraoral scanner. An optimal ambient scanning light condition was not found; this should be adjusted based on the specific IOS system used. 3200 K of ambient light influences the precision of i700 when performed at 1000 lux, decreasing the accuracy. The variation of color temperature at the same illuminance does not affect the scanning accuracy of TRIOS 4, which obtained better accuracy in all scans at 1000 lux.

Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study

ObjectivesThe study aimed to compare the trueness and precision of five intraoral scanners (Emerald S, iTero Element 5D, Medit i700, Primescan, and Trios 4) and two indirect digitization techniques for both teeth and soft tissues on fresh mandibular and maxillary cadaver jaws. MethodsThe maxilla and mandible of a fully dentate cadaver were scanned by the ATOS industrial scanner to create a master model. Then, the specimens were scanned eight times by each intraoral scanner (IOS). In addition, 8 polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions were made and digitized with a Medit T710 desktop scanner. Stone models were then poured and again scanned with the desktop scanner. All IOS, PVS, and stone models were compared to the master model to calculate the mean absolute surface deviation for mandibular teeth, maxillary teeth, and palate. ResultsFor mandibular teeth, the PVS trueness was only significantly better than the Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.05). In maxillary teeth, the PVS trueness was significantly better than all IOSs (p < 0.05–0.001); the stone trueness was significantly better than Emerald S (p < 0.01), Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.01). In the palate, PVS and stone trueness were significantly lower than the iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < p < 0.01). Stone trueness was significantly lower than the Medit i700 (p < 0.05). The precision in the palate was significantly lower for PVS and stone than for Emerald S (p < 0.01, p < 0.05), iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01, p < 0.01), Primescan (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), and Trios 4 (p < 0.001, p < 0.01). Significant differences in trueness between the IOSs were observed only in the mandibular teeth. The Medit i700 performed worse than Emerald S (p < 0.01) and iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01). For mandibular teeth, the Medit i700 was significantly more precise than Primescan (p < 0.01) and the Emerald S (p < 0.05). The Trios 4 was significantly less precise than Emerald S (p < 0.05). The precision of Medit i700 was significantly worse than iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) for maxillary teeth, as well as the Primescan (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < 0.05) for the palate. ConclusionsIn general, indirectly digitized models from PVS impressions had higher trueness than IOS for maxillary teeth; precision between the two methods was similar. IOS was more accurate for palatal tissues. The differences in trueness and precision for mandibular teeth between the various techniques were negligible. Clinical significanceAll investigated IOSs and indirect digitization could be used for complete arch scanning in mandibular and maxillary dentate arches. However, direct optical digitization is preferable for the palate due to the low accuracy of physical impression techniques for soft tissues.

Accuracy of Intraoral Scanner for Recording Completely Edentulous Arches-A Systematic Review.

Scanning edentulous arches during complete denture fabrication is a crucial step; however, the quality of the resulting digital scan is still questionable. The purpose of this study is to systematically review studies (both clinical and in vitro) and determine whether intraoral scanners have clinically acceptable accuracy when recording completely edentulous arches for the fabrication of removable complete dentures. An electronic search in medical databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS), using a combination of relevant keywords, retrieved 334 articles. After full-text evaluation, twelve articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review (eight clinical studies and four in vitro studies). A quality analysis of the included studies was carried out using the QUADAS-2 tool. The accuracy values varied between different intraoral scanners. Different regions of the edentulous arches showed differences in trueness and precision values in both in vitro and clinical studies. Peripheral borders, the inner seal, and poorly traceable structures like the soft palate showed maximum discrepancies. The accuracy of intraoral scanners in recording clear anatomic landmarks like hard tissues with attached mucosa was comparable to conventional edentulous arch impressions. However, higher discrepancies were recorded when digitizing mobile and poorly traceable structures. Intraoral scanners can be used to digitize denture-bearing areas, but the interpretation of the peripheral border and the soft palate should be carefully carried out.

Digitization accuracy and scannability of different prosthodontic materials: An in vitro trial

Digital scanning of different prosthodontic materials is commonplace in contemporary practice. However, the scannability of prosthodontic materials has not been thoroughly investigated. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and measure the unscanned area in a preset time limit of commonly used framework materials. A mandibular acrylic resin reference dental typodont with 3 teeth, with the central one prepared for a complete coverage crown, was digitized by using a desktop scanner. A complete coverage crown was generated in standard tessellation language (STL) format. Three groups were created from the digital design according to the crown material: milled polyetheretherketone (PEEK), milled airborne-particle abraded titanium, and milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). They were scanned with the desktop scanner to be used as reference files for each group. The intraoral scanner Medit i700 was used to digitize each specimen 10 times (n=10). Using a nonmetrology grade software program, the deviations between the test STL file of the intraoral scanner and the reference STL file of the desktop scanner were assessed by using the RMSvalues. The unscanned surface area in a preset time limit of 6seconds (scannability) was assessed. Groups were compared by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni correction when theresults were significant. All tests were 2-tailed (α=0.05). Regarding deviation analysis, RMS discrepancies were computed, and significant differences in trueness were found (P<.001) among the 3 studied groups. The titanium group had the highest trueness followed by the PEEK and PMMA groups, which were statistically similar (P>.05). Precision differed significantly among the 3 studied groups (P<.001). PEEK was the most precisely scanned material followed by titanium, and the PMMA group had the least precision. Regarding scannability, there were overall significant differences (P<.001). Titanium was the most scannable, followed by PEEK and then PMMA. Airborne-particle abraded titanium had better trueness and scannability than PEEK and PMMA. However, PEEK was the most precisely scanned material.

Evaluation of the trueness and adaptation of zirconia crowns fabricated with stereolithography.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and adaptation of all-ceramic zirconia crowns fabricated by stereolithography (SLA) compared with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) milling technology. Ten all-ceramic zirconia crowns each were fabricated with SLA (experimental group) and CAD/CAM numerical control milling technology (control group). The accuracy (including trueness and precision), and the internal and marginal adaptation of the crowns were measured with the optical impression and silicone rubber film method and the three-dimensional deviation analysis software Geomagic studio, and the results were statistically analyzed. The results indicated no statistical difference in trueness and the occlusal, axial and marginal adaptation between groups (p>0.05), and the precision in the SLA group was better than that in the milling group (p<0.05). Thus, crowns fabricated with SLA meet clinical application requirements.

Evaluating the Feasibility and Accuracy of Digitizing a Maxillary Defect Model Simulating Various Trismus Conditions.

To compare the feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize a maxillary defect model simulating various trismus conditions. Four intraoral scanners were used to digitize a maxillary defect model simulating four different degrees of trismus (mouth opening = 10, 20, 30, and 40 mm), and the scanned areas were compared. The scans were also superimposed on each other for precision analysis and on reference data for trueness analysis using 3D evaluation software. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare area, precision, and trueness among scanners and among conditions. The surface area for which 3D data were obtained by the intraoral scanners ranged from 2,672 to 6,613 mm2. Significant differences were observed between the scanners (P < .001) and between the trismus conditions (P < .001), with a smaller scanned surface area in severe trismus (10 mm). Trueness ranged from 0.033 to 0.301 mm, and precision from 0.022 to 0.397 mm. Significant differences in trueness and precision values were found among the scanners (P = .001 and P = .001, respectively), but not the trismus conditions (P = .260 and P = .075, respectively). Although trueness and precision differed between intraoral scanners, digitization of the maxillectomy model simulating various trismus conditions appears to be feasible from the perspective of accuracy with all of the scanners used. The smaller scanned surface area in the severe trismus condition was due to lack of data on the defect site in that condition.

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study.

To compare the accuracy of digitizing conventional impressions to intraoral surface scans for all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch. An edentulous maxillary arch model with four implants placed in an all-on-four design was fabricated. Intraoral surface scans (n=10) were obtained using an intraoral scanner after scan body insertion. For conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model, implant copings were inserted into the implant fixation for implant level, opened tray impressions (n=10). The model and conventional impressions were digitized to obtain digital files. A reference file was created using a laboratory-scanned conventional standard tessellation language (STL) file with analog to scan the body using exocad software. STL datasets from the two digital and conventional impression groups were superimposed with reference files to assess the 3D deviations. Two-way ANOVA and paired-samples t-test was performed to assess the difference in trueness and examine the effects of impression technique and implant angulation on the deviation amount. No significant differences were found between the conventional impression and intraoral surface scan groups F(1, 76)=2.705, p=0.104. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and digital straight implants and between conventional and digital tilted implants F(1, 76)=.041, p=0.841. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and conventional tilted implants p=0.07 and between digital straight and digital tilted implants p=0.08. Digital scans were more accurate than conventional impressions. The digital straight implants were more accurate than the conventional straight implants, and the digital tilted implants were more accurate than the conventional tilted implants, with higher accuracy for digital straight implants.

Influence of print orientation on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of diagnostic casts manufactured with a daylight polymer printer

Statement of problemPrint orientation may affect the manufacturing accuracy of vat-polymerized diagnostic casts. However, its influence should be analyzed based on the manufacturing trinomial (technology, printer, and material) and printing protocol used to manufacture the casts. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the influence of different print orientations on the manufacturing accuracy of vat-polymerized polymer diagnostic casts. Material and methodsA standard tessellation language (STL) reference file containing a maxillary virtual cast was used to manufacture all specimens using a vat-polymerization daylight polymer printer (Photon mono SE. LCD 2K) and a model resin (Phrozen Aqua Gray 4K). All specimens were manufactured using the same printing parameters, except for print orientation. Five groups were created depending on the print orientation: 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5, and 90 degrees (n=10). Each specimen was digitized using a desktop scanner. The discrepancy between the reference file and each of the digitized printed casts was measured using the Euclidean measurements and root mean square (RMS) error (Geomagic Wrap v.2017). Independent (unpaired) sample t tests and multiple pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni test were used to analyze the trueness of the Euclidean distances and RMS data. Precision was assessed using the Levene test (α=.05). ResultsIn terms of Euclidean measurements, significant differences in trueness and precision values were found among the groups tested (P<.001). The 22.5- and 45-degree groups resulted in the best trueness values, and the 67.5-degree group had the lowest trueness value. The 0- and 90-degree groups led to the best precision values, while the 22.5-, 45-, and 67.5-degree groups showed the lowest precision values. Analyzing the RMS error calculations, significant differences in trueness and precision values were found among the groups tested (P<.001). The 22.5-degree group had the best trueness value, and the 90-degree group resulted in the lowest trueness value among the groups. The 67.5-degree group led to the best precision value, and the 90-degree group to the lowest precision value among the groups. ConclusionsPrint orientation influenced the accuracy of diagnostic casts fabricated by using the selected printer and material. However, all specimens had clinically acceptable manufacturing accuracy ranging between 92 μm and 131 μm.

Influence of scan technology on the accuracy and speed of intraoral scanning systems for the edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study.

To compare the accuracy of three intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and precision relative to the scanner acquisition technology and scan capture mode. Scan speed of each scanner was also evaluated. An edentulous maxillary arch was digitized (reference model) and 3D-printed using an SLA-based 3D-printer (XFAB; DWS, Italy) (n=10). Each model was scanned using three intraoral scanners, each with different scan technologies: confocal (Trios 3; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), parallel confocal (iTero; Align Technology), and triangulation (Medit i700). Scan time and scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) were calculated using digital subtraction technique (Geomagic Control X v2020, 3DSystems, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to detect differences in trueness, precision, and scanning time between the tested groups (p<0.05). ANOVA results showed statistically significant differences in trueness, precision, and scan time among the tested groups. Confocal scanning technique (Trios 3) showed the highest trueness and precision (root mean square estimate [RMSE] 0.094 and 0.096, respectively) followed by iTero displaying parallel confocal technique (RMSE 0.113 and 0.133, respectively); the difference was not significant (p=0.849, p=0.488). Further, Trios showed the longest scanning time (100s) compared to iTero and Medit i700 (p=0.011 and 0.002, respectively). Medit i700 presenting triangulation scan technology revealed lowest trueness and precision (RMSE 0.268) (p=0.000, p=0.001) and fastest scan time (59s) close to iTero (66s) (p=0.802). Scanner technology had an influence on the accuracy and scan speed of the acquired intraoral scans. The Trios 3 scanner featuring the confocal acquisition technology displayed the highest trueness, precision, and longest scan time. Medit i700 IOS with triangulation acquisition concept featured the lowest trueness, precision, and fastest scan speed. There is no ideal scanner with the best combination of accuracy and scan speed.

Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis.

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of digital impression making based on trueness and precision measurements of dental implants placed in maxillofacial lesions to produce Maxillofacial prosthesis substructures. Two intra-oral scanners (Trios 3 and CS 3700) and one Desktop scanner (open technology) were examined in this study. A Model of a patient with a lesion in the ear region was created as a reference. The reference model was scanned by each scanner 10 times. Standard Tessellation Language files were provided from each scanner and were examined in terms of Trueness and Precision aspects. In Distance 1, in the one-way analysis of variance test, there was a significant difference between the three scanners. The Trios group has less deviation than the Open Technology group (P = 0.015) compared with the CareStream (CS) group that showed more deviation (P < 0.000). There is a statistically significant difference in distance 2 among scanners. The Trios group showed more deviation as compared with the Open Technology group (P < 0.000). While this deviation is not statistically significant compared with the CS group (P = 0.0907). Open Technology Group compared with the CS group also has less deviation in distance 2, which has been statistically significant (P < 0.000). The preparation of a precise model of maxillofacial lesions is still difficult for some Intraoral scanners. There were significant statistical differences in Trueness and Precision among scanners. Used scanners can be applied as an alternative to conventional impression methods.

Accuracy of intraoral scanning methods for maxillary Kennedy class I arch

Background/purposeThe optimal strategy for scanning removable partial dentures remains unknown. This study investigated scanning strategies for patients with a maxillary Kennedy Class I arch as well as the measurement deviations of three scanning strategies. Materials and methodsA standard maxilla model was positioned with a holder in a dental chair to simulate a natural patient position and posture. Standard Tessellation Language files for reference models were formatted with a desktop scanner, and model operation files were obtained with a TRIOS 3 Pod intraoral scanner and superimposed using Exocad computer-aided design software. The three scanning strategies evaluated in this study (Strategy M, T-R, and R-T) were used for nine scans each, and the resulting data were recorded. The deviation of the three strategies was statistically analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc testing. ResultsThe trueness of Strategy M, T-R, and R-T was 52.6 ± 31.0, 54.9 ± 27.6, and 50.1 ± 22.3 μm, respectively. No statistically significant differences in trueness were detected among the three groups (P > 0.05). However, Strategy T-R had the evenest distribution of all measuring points. The deviations of the measurements obtained by three scanning strategies were mostly between 30 and 70 μm. The precision of the three strategies was similar as well. ConclusionTrueness did not differ significantly among the three strategies. However, Strategy T-R is recommended for use with a TRIOS 3 Pod scanner because of its reduction of the seesaw effect and high stabilization of the RPD framework.