1. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners
- Author
-
Gianpaolo Savio, Edoardo Stellini, Lorenzo Graiff, Roberto Meneghello, Carlo Monaco, Paolo Vigolo, and Adolfo Di Fiore
- Subjects
Dental Impression Technique ,Dental implant ,Computer science ,medicine.medical_treatment ,0206 medical engineering ,Digital impression ,02 engineering and technology ,Coordinate-measuring machine ,Full arch ,Imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,Imaging, Three-Dimensional ,0302 clinical medicine ,Software ,CEREC ,Models ,Accuracy ,Intraoral scanner ,medicine ,Dentistry (miscellaneous) ,Arch ,Orthodontics ,business.industry ,Dental prosthesis ,030206 dentistry ,020601 biomedical engineering ,Models, Dental ,Impression ,Computer-Aided Design ,Dental Prosthesis Design ,Three-Dimensional ,Dental ,Oral Surgery ,business - Abstract
Purpose Compare the accuracy of intraoral digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis acquired with eight different intraoral scanner (Ios). Methods A polymethyl methacrylate acrylic model of an edentulous mandible with six scan-abutment was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Eight different Ios were used to generate digital impression: True Definition, Trios, Cerec Omnicam, 3D progress, CS3500, CS3600, Planmeca Emelard and Dental Wings. Fifteen digital impressions were made. A software called “Scan-abut” was developed to analyse and compare the digital impression with the master model, obtaining the scanning accuracy. The three-dimensional (3D) position and distance analysis were performed. Results Mean value of the 3D position analysis showed that the True Definition (31 μm ± 8 μm) and Trios (32 μm ± 5 μm) have the best performance of the group. The Cerec Omnicam (71 μm ± 55 μm), CS3600 (61 μm ± 14 μm) have an average performance. The CS3500 (107 μm ± 28 μm) and Planmeca Emelard (101 μm ± 38 μm) present a middle-low performance, while the 3D progress (344 μm ± 121 μm) and Dental Wings (148 μm ± 64 μm) show the low performance. The 3D distance analysis showed a good linear relationship between the errors and scan-abutment distance only with the True Definition and CS3600. Conclusions Not all scanners are suitable for digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and the weight of the output files is independent from the accuracy of the Ios.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF