| Autor: |
Schmidt, Alexander, Benedickt, Christopher R., Schlenz, Maximiliane A., Rehmann, Peter, Wöstmann, Bernd |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
International Journal of Prosthodontics; Nov/Dec2021, Vol. 34 Issue 6, p756-762, 7p, 1 Color Photograph, 2 Black and White Photographs, 2 Charts |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision) achievable with four intraoral scanner (IOS) systems and different preparation geometries. Materials and Methods: A model of a maxillary arch with different preparation geometries (onlay, inlay, veneer, and full crown) served as the reference master model (RMM). The RMM was scanned 10 times with four commonly used IOS systems (Trios 2 [TR]; Omnicam [OC]; True Definition (TD); and Primescan [PS]). Scans were matched using a 3D measurement software (Inspect 2019) and best-fit algorithm, and the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the preparation types of the scanning data was evaluated for positive and negative deviations separately. All data were subjected to univariate analysis of variance using SPSS version 24. Results: Mean ± SD positive deviations ranged from 4.6 ± 0.7 µm (TR, veneer) to 25.9 ± 2.4 µm (OC, full crown). Mean negative deviations ranged from -7.2 ± 0.6 µm (TR, veneer) to -26.4 ± 3.8 µm (OC, full crown). There were significant differences (P < .05) in terms of trueness and precision among the different IOS systems and preparation geometries. Conclusion: The transfer accuracy of simple geometries was significantly more accurate than those of the more complex prosthetic geometries. Overall, however, the IOS used in this study yielded results that were clinically useful for the investigated preparation types, and the mean positive and negative deviations were in clinically acceptable ranges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
