Trueness and depth discrepancy of post-space scans using an intraoral scanner: influence of preparation dimensions: an in vitro study.

Abstract

Background: Intraoral scanning of post spaces offers a potential alternative to conventional impressions, but its effectiveness depends on overcoming limitations influenced by post space dimensions.

Aim of the study: This study aimed to evaluate the trueness and depth discrepancy percentage of scanned post spaces with different dimensions using an intraoral scanner.

Materials and methods: Twenty single-rooted human maxillary canines were endodontically treated. Teeth were assigned to two post space preparation width groups: N (Ø1.5 mm) and W (Ø1.7 mm) (n = 10 per group). Each width group was further subdivided into two depth subgroups: S (6 mm) and L (10 mm) (n = 5 per subgroup). This resulted in four experimental subgroups: NS (Ø1.5 mm, 6 mm), NL (Ø1.5 mm, 10 mm), WS (Ø1.7 mm, 6 mm), and WL (Ø1.7 mm, 10 mm). Specimens were scanned using the Panda P2 intraoral scanner (IOS), and the obtained STL files were aligned and compared with those from traditional impressions scanned with the InEos X5. Trueness and depth discrepancy percentage were evaluated using reverse engineering software. The data were statistically analysed using a Two-Way ANOVA, followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using Tukey's HSD for each individual factor.

Results: Preparation width had no significant effect on trueness (p > 0.05), whereas increasing preparation depth significantly reduced it. Additionally, a greater preparation width significantly decreased the depth discrepancy percentage, while increasing preparation depth led to a significant increase. A statistically significant, very strong positive correlation was observed between RMS and depth discrepancy percentage (r = 0.898), indicating that greater deviations in trueness were associated with increased depth discrepancies.

Conclusions: Within the study's limitations, trueness improved by reducing post space depth and remained clinically acceptable for all subgroups. However, increasing depth to 10 mm raised the depth discrepancy beyond the clinically acceptable range, while decreasing width also increased discrepancy.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.