In Vitro Comparison Between Complete-Arch Implant Supported Frameworks Using Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry.

IF 1.8
Julian Conejo, Michelle Ordway, Thomas H Yoo, Howard P Fraiman, Pablo J Atria, Luciano Retana, Markus B Blatz, Lea S Prott
{"title":"In Vitro Comparison Between Complete-Arch Implant Supported Frameworks Using Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry.","authors":"Julian Conejo, Michelle Ordway, Thomas H Yoo, Howard P Fraiman, Pablo J Atria, Luciano Retana, Markus B Blatz, Lea S Prott","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the vertical microgap of complete arch implant supported frameworks (ISF) obtained from one intraoral scanner (IOS) and two different photogrammetry (PG) systems.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An edentulous mandibular model with four implants (BioHorizons) served as reference. Multi-unit abutments (BioHorizons) were inserted and torqued to 30 Ncm. A digital reference cast (Control group) was obtained by scanning the model with a laboratory scanner (inEosX5, Dentsply Sirona). Three test groups were investigated: PS (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona), ICam (ICam4D, Imetric4D Imaging Sàrl), and PIC (PIC System, PIC Dental). All scans were exported as Standard-tessellation language (STL) files and virtual bars were designed and milled out of titanium (n=2 per test group). The modified Sheffield test was used to quantitatively assess vertical microgaps. Differences between all groups were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test (a=0.05). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare vertical microgaps at each respective implant position across groups (a=0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean vertical microgaps varied across acquisition devices, with lowest values in the control group (22.65±7.279 µm), followed by ICam (24.10±7.991 µm), PIC (30.52± 9.809 µm), and PS (33.21±13.84 µm). Statistically significant differences were detected between Control and PS as well as Control and ICam. No statistically significant difference occurred between the two PG groups. Vertical microgaps were the highest at implant site 44, predominantly observed in groups PS and PIC.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Frameworks fabricated from digital impressions of PG groups showed lower vertical microgaps than those fabricated using the IOS.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9363","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the vertical microgap of complete arch implant supported frameworks (ISF) obtained from one intraoral scanner (IOS) and two different photogrammetry (PG) systems.

Materials and methods: An edentulous mandibular model with four implants (BioHorizons) served as reference. Multi-unit abutments (BioHorizons) were inserted and torqued to 30 Ncm. A digital reference cast (Control group) was obtained by scanning the model with a laboratory scanner (inEosX5, Dentsply Sirona). Three test groups were investigated: PS (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona), ICam (ICam4D, Imetric4D Imaging Sàrl), and PIC (PIC System, PIC Dental). All scans were exported as Standard-tessellation language (STL) files and virtual bars were designed and milled out of titanium (n=2 per test group). The modified Sheffield test was used to quantitatively assess vertical microgaps. Differences between all groups were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test (a=0.05). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare vertical microgaps at each respective implant position across groups (a=0.05).

Results: Mean vertical microgaps varied across acquisition devices, with lowest values in the control group (22.65±7.279 µm), followed by ICam (24.10±7.991 µm), PIC (30.52± 9.809 µm), and PS (33.21±13.84 µm). Statistically significant differences were detected between Control and PS as well as Control and ICam. No statistically significant difference occurred between the two PG groups. Vertical microgaps were the highest at implant site 44, predominantly observed in groups PS and PIC.

Conclusions: Frameworks fabricated from digital impressions of PG groups showed lower vertical microgaps than those fabricated using the IOS.

使用口腔内扫描和摄影测量的全弓种植支撑框架的体外比较。
目的:比较一种口腔内扫描(IOS)和两种不同摄影测量(PG)系统获得的全弓种植体支撑框架(ISF)的垂直微间隙。材料与方法:以四种植体无牙下颌模型为参照。插入多单元基台(BioHorizons)并将其扭转至30 Ncm。用实验室扫描仪(inEosX5, Dentsply Sirona)扫描模型获得数字参考铸型(对照组)。研究了三个试验组:PS (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona), ICam (ICam4D, Imetric4D Imaging Sàrl)和PIC (PIC System, PIC Dental)。所有扫描结果导出为标准镶嵌语言(STL)文件,设计并铣出钛的虚拟棒(每个测试组n=2)。采用改进的Sheffield试验定量评价垂直微间隙。各组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis检验(a=0.05)。采用方差分析(ANOVA)比较各组各种植体位置的垂直微间隙(a=0.05)。结果:不同采集装置的平均垂直微间隙差异较大,对照组最小(22.65±7.279µm), ICam最小(24.10±7.991µm), PIC最小(30.52±9.809µm), PS最小(33.21±13.84µm)。控制组与PS组、控制组与ICam组差异有统计学意义。两组间无统计学差异。垂直微间隙在种植体44位点最高,以PS组和PIC组居多。结论:PG组数字印模制作的框架比使用IOS制作的框架具有更低的垂直微间隙。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信