The Trueness between Conventional Impression and Different Intraoral Scanners for All-on-4 Implants: An In vitro Comparative Study.

IF 2.1 Q1 Dentistry
Osamah A Alsulimani, Abdulrahman J Alhaddad, Samar H Abuzinadah, Saeed J Alzahrani, Hamed S Alghamdi, Farah A Ghander, Refad M Magadmi
{"title":"The Trueness between Conventional Impression and Different Intraoral Scanners for All-on-4 Implants: An In vitro Comparative Study.","authors":"Osamah A Alsulimani, Abdulrahman J Alhaddad, Samar H Abuzinadah, Saeed J Alzahrani, Hamed S Alghamdi, Farah A Ghander, Refad M Magadmi","doi":"10.1055/s-0045-1811961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To assess and compare the trueness (dimensional discrepancy and degree of deviation) of various methods of impressions for All-on-4 implants.This investigation employed a single-piece artificial mandibular jaw with four implants arranged in an All-on-4 configuration. Three impression methods were compared: one open-tray conventional impression digitized after pouring, and two intraoral scanners, TRIOS 5 and Runyes 3DS 3.0. A reference scan (control) was conducted with a laboratory-based scanner. All scans were performed using scan bodies and exported as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. A total of 30 STL scans were produced (<i>n</i> = 10). The dimensional discrepancy (along the <i>X</i>, <i>Y</i>, and <i>Z</i> axes) and the overall degree of deviation in the position were assessed. Data analysis was conducted using Brown-Forsythe one-way analysis of variance and Tamhane's post hoc tests (<i>p</i> < 0.05).The mean degree of deviation for scan bodies was as follows: TRIOS 5 (1.11 ± 0.06 mm), Runyes 3DS (1.02 ± 0.05 mm), and conventional (0.82 ± 0.16 mm). Statistically significant differences were found among all impression methods (<i>p</i> < 0.05). While the conventional method showed the highest trueness, it had the greatest standard deviation (SD, 0.16), which was the least consistent among them. The Runyes 3DS scans displayed the highest precision with the degree of deviation of 0.05 (± SD). Dimensional discrepancies mainly occur on the <i>Z</i>-axis across all three impression methods. Conventional impressions showed statistically significant discrepancies in the <i>Y</i>- and <i>Z</i>-axes, while TRIOS 5 images had statistically significant discrepancies in the <i>X</i>- and <i>Z</i>-axes. Runyes 3DS readings were statistically significantly discrepant in the <i>Z</i>-axis.While both conventional methods and digital scans have their merits, traditional impression methods may offer improved trueness in full-arch implant cases. Utilizing the open-tray system with suitable materials and methods can enhance precision and lead to more reliable outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12028,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1811961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To assess and compare the trueness (dimensional discrepancy and degree of deviation) of various methods of impressions for All-on-4 implants.This investigation employed a single-piece artificial mandibular jaw with four implants arranged in an All-on-4 configuration. Three impression methods were compared: one open-tray conventional impression digitized after pouring, and two intraoral scanners, TRIOS 5 and Runyes 3DS 3.0. A reference scan (control) was conducted with a laboratory-based scanner. All scans were performed using scan bodies and exported as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. A total of 30 STL scans were produced (n = 10). The dimensional discrepancy (along the X, Y, and Z axes) and the overall degree of deviation in the position were assessed. Data analysis was conducted using Brown-Forsythe one-way analysis of variance and Tamhane's post hoc tests (p < 0.05).The mean degree of deviation for scan bodies was as follows: TRIOS 5 (1.11 ± 0.06 mm), Runyes 3DS (1.02 ± 0.05 mm), and conventional (0.82 ± 0.16 mm). Statistically significant differences were found among all impression methods (p < 0.05). While the conventional method showed the highest trueness, it had the greatest standard deviation (SD, 0.16), which was the least consistent among them. The Runyes 3DS scans displayed the highest precision with the degree of deviation of 0.05 (± SD). Dimensional discrepancies mainly occur on the Z-axis across all three impression methods. Conventional impressions showed statistically significant discrepancies in the Y- and Z-axes, while TRIOS 5 images had statistically significant discrepancies in the X- and Z-axes. Runyes 3DS readings were statistically significantly discrepant in the Z-axis.While both conventional methods and digital scans have their merits, traditional impression methods may offer improved trueness in full-arch implant cases. Utilizing the open-tray system with suitable materials and methods can enhance precision and lead to more reliable outcomes.

All-on-4种植体常规印模与不同口内扫描仪的准确性:体外比较研究。
评估和比较All-on-4种植体不同印模方法的准确性(尺寸差异和偏差程度)。本研究采用单片人工下颌骨与四个种植体排列在All-on-4配置。比较三种印模方法:一种开盘常规印模,浇注后数字化印模,两种口内扫描仪TRIOS 5和Runyes 3DS 3.0。参考扫描(对照)用实验室扫描仪进行。所有扫描都是使用扫描体进行的,并导出为标准镶嵌语言(STL)文件。总共进行了30次STL扫描(n = 10)。尺寸差异(沿X, Y和Z轴)和总体偏差程度的位置进行了评估。数据分析采用Brown-Forsythe单向方差分析和Tamhane's事后检验(p p z轴)在所有三种印象方法中进行。传统印象在Y轴和z轴上有统计学意义上的差异,而TRIOS 5图像在X轴和z轴上有统计学意义上的差异。Runyes 3DS读数在z轴上有统计学显著差异。虽然传统方法和数字扫描都有优点,但传统的印模方法可以提高全弓种植病例的准确性。采用合适的材料和方法使用开盘系统可以提高精度,并产生更可靠的结果。
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
European Journal of Dentistry
European Journal of Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
161
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Dentistry is the official journal of the Dental Investigations Society, based in Turkey. It is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, Open Access, multi-disciplinary international journal addressing various aspects of dentistry. The journal''s board consists of eminent investigators in dentistry from across the globe and presents an ideal international composition. The journal encourages its authors to submit original investigations, reviews, and reports addressing various divisions of dentistry including oral pathology, prosthodontics, endodontics, orthodontics etc. It is available both online and in print.
×
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