In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants
Purpose: To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials. Materials and Methods: Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric i...
| Autores: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2020 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Varias* (Consorci de Biblioteques Universitáries de Catalunya, Centre de Serveis Científics i Acadèmics de Catalunya) |
| Repositorio: | Recercat. Dipósit de la Recerca de Catalunya |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:recercat.cat:20.500.12328/3044 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/3044 https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228266 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Implants dentals Escàners òptics Resina Pròtesis d'implants Implantes dentales Escáneres ópticos Prótesis de implantes Dental implants Optical scanners Resin Implant prostheses 616.3 |
| Sumario: | Purpose: To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials. Materials and Methods: Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans. Results: Compared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques. Conclusions: Optical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions. |
|---|