ACCURACY OF DIFFERENT INTERORAL SCANNERS ON MULIPLE IMPLANTS: AN IN VITRO STUDY

Document Type : literature

Authors

1 Tanta University

2 Faculty of Dental Medicine - Boys - Cairo Al-Azhar University

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate trueness and precision of images acquired of different intraoral scanners within oral implantology of partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) situation. Materials and methods: gypsum model was prepared, to represent partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) with two implant analogs and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) scanbodies screwed on it. This model was scanned with a reference scanner (InEos X5) and with 4 IOS (Trios 4, Prime scan, Medit i700, Carestream 3700); 8 scans were taken for the model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out using ANOVA, Kruskal Wallis and Pearson coefficient tests. Results: For trueness Trios 4 had the best trueness with median and standard deviation (19.21 ±2.18 μm) followed Medit i700 (20.09 ±0.51 μm) then Prime scan (22.04 ± 1.10 μm) then CS 3700 (41.20 ±2.33 μm). For precision Medit i700 had the best precision with median and IQR 12.35 μm (11.75 – 12.90 μm) followed by Prime scan 18.70 μm (16.60 –22.05 μm) then Trios 4 19.75 μm (17.90 –21.95μm) then CS 32.55 μm (29.10 –35.35 μm). Conclusion: The IOSs showed significant differences between them, both in trueness and in precision for impression recording in PEM situation with PEEK scanbodies. Trios 4 had best trueness and Medit i700 had best precision.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science
Volume 28, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
April - Restorative Dentistry Issue (Removable Prosthodontics, Fixed Prosthodontics, Endodontics, Dental Biomaterials, Operative Dentistry)
April 2025
Pages 223-230

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics