|
KMID : 1023820210130050316
|
|
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
2021 Volume.13 No. 5 p.316 ~ p.326
|
|
|
Accuracy of intraoral scans of edentulous jaws with different generations of intraoral scanners compared to laboratory scans
|
|
Kontis Panagiotis
Guth Jan-Frederik
Schubert Oliver
Keul Christine
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
PURPOSE: Purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the accuracy of different intraoral scans versus laboratory scans of impressions and casts for the digitization of an edentulous maxilla.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PEEK model of an edentulous maxilla, featuring four hemispheres on the alveolar ridges in region 13, 17, 23 and 27, was industrially digitized to obtain a reference dataset (REF). Intraoral scans using Cerec Primescan AC (PRI) and Cerec AC Omnicam (OMN), as well as conventional impressions (scannable polyvinyl siloxane) were carried out (n = 25). Conventional impressions (E5I) and referring plaster casts were scanned with the inEOS X5 (E5M). All datasets were exported in STL and analyzed (Geomagic Qualify). Linear and angular differences were evaluated by virtually constructed measurement points in the centers of the hemispheres (P13, P17, P23, P27) and lines between the points (P17?P13, P17?P23, P17?P27). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test were performed to test for normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis-H test, and Mann-Whitney-U test to detect significant differences in trueness, followed by 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to detect significant differences in precision (P < .008).
RESULTS: Group PRI showed the highest trueness in linear and angular parameters (P < .001), while group E5I showed the highest precision (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Intraoral scan data obtained using Primescan showed the highest trueness while the indirect digitization of impressions showed the highest precision. To enhance the workflow, indirect digitization of the impression itself appears to be a reasonable technique, as it combines fast access to the digital workflow with the possibility of functional impression of mucosal areas.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Intraoral scanner, Laboratory scanner, Edentulous jaw, Digital impression, Accuracy
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
 
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
  
|
|