Source:The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Author(s): Walter Renne, Mark Ludlow, John Fryml, Zach Schurch, Anthony Mennito, Ray Kessler, Abigail Lauer
Statement of problemAs digital impressions become more common and more digital impression systems are released onto the market, it is essential to systematically and objectively evaluate their accuracy.PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the trueness and precision of 6 intraoral scanners and 1 laboratory scanner in both sextant and complete-arch scenarios. Furthermore, time of scanning was evaluated and correlated with trueness and precision.Material and methodsA custom complete-arch model was fabricated with a refractive index similar to that of tooth structure. Seven digital impression systems were used to scan the custom model for both posterior sextant and complete arch scenarios. Analysis was performed using 3-dimensional metrology software to measure discrepancies between the master model and experimental casts.ResultsOf the intraoral scanners, the Planscan was found to have the best trueness and precision while the 3Shape Trios was found to have the poorest for sextant scanning (P<.001). The order of trueness for complete arch scanning was as follows: 3Shape D800 >iTero >3Shape TRIOS 3 >Carestream 3500 >Planscan >CEREC Omnicam >CEREC Bluecam. The order of precision for complete-arch scanning was as follows: CS3500 >iTero >3Shape D800 >3Shape TRIOS 3 >CEREC Omnicam >Planscan >CEREC Bluecam. For the secondary outcome evaluating the effect time has on trueness and precision, the complete- arch scan time was highly correlated with both trueness (r=0.771) and precision (r=0.771).ConclusionsFor sextant scanning, the Planscan was found to be the most precise and true scanner. For complete-arch scanning, the 3Shape Trios was found to have the best balance of speed and accuracy.
http://ift.tt/2ion1y7
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου