In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.

Autor: Bilmenoglu C; Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey. Electronic address: caglarbilmenoglu@trakya.edu.tr., Cilingir A; Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey., Geckili O; Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey., Bilhan H; Researcher, Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Health, School of Dentistry, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany., Bilgin T; Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry [J Prosthet Dent] 2020 Dec; Vol. 124 (6), pp. 755-760. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Jan 25.
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.017
Abstrakt: Statement of Problem: Digital scanning systems have become popular, but whether these systems are adequate for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses is unclear.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of 10 different dental intraoral scanners.
Material and Methods: Six implant analogs were installed, and an edentulous mandibular model composed of scannable Type 4 gypsum was scanned with 10 different intraoral scanners (3D Progress, Omnicam, Bluecam, Apollo DI, Planscan, E4D Tech, TRIOS MonoColor Cart, TRIOS Color Cart, TRIOS Color Pod, Lythos), 10 times each after the scan body was placed on the implant abutments. The data obtained were then converted into standard tessellation language format. For the control group, the gypsum model was scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80). For trueness, the dental and industrial scanning data packs were analyzed with 3D comparison software. Statistical analyses were performed by using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.
Results: When ranked according to their surface superimposition values, the Color POD, Omnicam, Apollo DI, Color Cart, MonoColor Cart, and Bluecam scanners were found within the range of 31 to 45 μm. This group was followed by E4D, 3D Progress, Lythos, and Planscan, which were found within the range of 82 to 344 μm according to the same criteria.
Conclusions: Some of the digital scanners had the necessary performance for the fabrication of complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. However, the possibility of data loss producing artifacts should be considered.
(Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: