{"title":"Evaluating the accuracy of intraoral scanners used in single-unit implant prosthesis construction","authors":"Elifnur Güzelce Sultanoğlu, Büşra Keleş Eroğlu","doi":"10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.s1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the scanning accuracy of various intraoral scanners when taking digital impressions of single-implant-supported prostheses. Methodology: A partially edentulous model with a single implant was produced, and a scan body was fixed on the model. The control model was created by scanning the model using Ineos X5 (CM). The model was also scanned (n = 3) using three different intraoral scanners (IOS) [(Helios (H), TRIOS 3 (T3), Medit (M)]. GOM Inspect software was used for comparison. The data were analyzed with a Shapiro–Wilk test, resulting in a nonnormal distribution, and Kruskal–Wallis test was employed for intergroup parameter comparisons. Results: There were significant differences in the devices’ accuracy values (p < 0.05). Accuracy M (19.1 μm), T3 (25.3 μm), H (33.9 μm) and sensitivity values (M (10 μm), T3 (19.05 μm), H (25 μm)) are similarly listed from high to low as M, T3, and H. Conclusion: IOS can be used to create digital impressions for single-unit implant crowns. Clinicians should be cautious and selective when choosing IOS for more successful and accurate impressions. More comprehensive and clinical studies using different brands are needed on this subject. How to cite this article: Güzelce Sultanoğlu E, Keleş Eroğlu B. Evaluating the accuracy of intraoral scanners used in single-unit implant prosthesis construction. Int Dent Res 2023;13(S1):32-37. https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.s1.5 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.","PeriodicalId":31322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.s1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the scanning accuracy of various intraoral scanners when taking digital impressions of single-implant-supported prostheses. Methodology: A partially edentulous model with a single implant was produced, and a scan body was fixed on the model. The control model was created by scanning the model using Ineos X5 (CM). The model was also scanned (n = 3) using three different intraoral scanners (IOS) [(Helios (H), TRIOS 3 (T3), Medit (M)]. GOM Inspect software was used for comparison. The data were analyzed with a Shapiro–Wilk test, resulting in a nonnormal distribution, and Kruskal–Wallis test was employed for intergroup parameter comparisons. Results: There were significant differences in the devices’ accuracy values (p < 0.05). Accuracy M (19.1 μm), T3 (25.3 μm), H (33.9 μm) and sensitivity values (M (10 μm), T3 (19.05 μm), H (25 μm)) are similarly listed from high to low as M, T3, and H. Conclusion: IOS can be used to create digital impressions for single-unit implant crowns. Clinicians should be cautious and selective when choosing IOS for more successful and accurate impressions. More comprehensive and clinical studies using different brands are needed on this subject. How to cite this article: Güzelce Sultanoğlu E, Keleş Eroğlu B. Evaluating the accuracy of intraoral scanners used in single-unit implant prosthesis construction. Int Dent Res 2023;13(S1):32-37. https://doi.org/10.5577/idr.2023.vol13.s1.5 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.