Evaluation and comparison of the scanning accuracy of three intraoral scanners for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture by three-dimensional digital superimposition technique and measurement of vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional-printed resin retainers: An in vitro study.

IF 1.3 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Mansi Dhiran, Ajay Sabane, Abhijit Ashok Patil, Arti Gachake, Darshana Mundhe, Rupali Patil
{"title":"Evaluation and comparison of the scanning accuracy of three intraoral scanners for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture by three-dimensional digital superimposition technique and measurement of vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional-printed resin retainers: An in vitro study.","authors":"Mansi Dhiran, Ajay Sabane, Abhijit Ashok Patil, Arti Gachake, Darshana Mundhe, Rupali Patil","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_248_26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to evaluate and compare the scanning accuracy of three IOSs and measuring the vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional (3D) printed resin retainers for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture situations.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>Comparative In Vitro Study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A maxillary Nissin typodont with prepared abutments at #13, #23, #25, #27, and #16 served as the master model. A calibrated Shining 3D laboratory scanner provided the reference standard tessellation language (control). Each IOS generated six scans ( n = 6/scanner; 18 test scans). Trueness and precision were derived by best-fit superimposition in Geomagic Design X. Fifty-four single-unit, three-unit, and cross-arch retainers were 3D-printed. Vertical marginal discrepancy was measured at mid-buccal and mid-lingual sites using a digital stereomicroscope (×20).</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test was used for comparisons among scanners and prosthesis spans. Pearson's correlation was used to assess the relationship between trueness and marginal fit, and Chi-square test was used to assess clinical acceptability. A P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3Shape TRIOS 3 showed the highest trueness (28.5 ± 5.2 µm) and precision (18.2 ± 3.1 µm), followed by Medit i700 and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3 ( P < 0.001). Marginal discrepancy was lowest with 3Shape TRIOS 3 (52.4 ± 6.5 µm) and increased with span. A positive correlation was found between trueness and marginal fit ( r = 0.82; P < 0.001). Clinical acceptability was 100%, 94.4%, and 77.8% for 3Shape TRIOS 3, Medit i700, and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3, respectively ( P = 0.041).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three scanners delivered clinically acceptable results; 3Shape TRIOS 3 yielded the highest accuracy and best marginal adaptation. Accuracy and marginal fit deteriorated as prosthesis span increased.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"26 4","pages":"378-388"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_248_26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","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 three IOSs and measuring the vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional (3D) printed resin retainers for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture situations.

Settings and design: Comparative In Vitro Study.

Materials and methods: A maxillary Nissin typodont with prepared abutments at #13, #23, #25, #27, and #16 served as the master model. A calibrated Shining 3D laboratory scanner provided the reference standard tessellation language (control). Each IOS generated six scans ( n = 6/scanner; 18 test scans). Trueness and precision were derived by best-fit superimposition in Geomagic Design X. Fifty-four single-unit, three-unit, and cross-arch retainers were 3D-printed. Vertical marginal discrepancy was measured at mid-buccal and mid-lingual sites using a digital stereomicroscope (×20).

Statistical analysis used: One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test was used for comparisons among scanners and prosthesis spans. Pearson's correlation was used to assess the relationship between trueness and marginal fit, and Chi-square test was used to assess clinical acceptability. A P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: 3Shape TRIOS 3 showed the highest trueness (28.5 ± 5.2 µm) and precision (18.2 ± 3.1 µm), followed by Medit i700 and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3 ( P < 0.001). Marginal discrepancy was lowest with 3Shape TRIOS 3 (52.4 ± 6.5 µm) and increased with span. A positive correlation was found between trueness and marginal fit ( r = 0.82; P < 0.001). Clinical acceptability was 100%, 94.4%, and 77.8% for 3Shape TRIOS 3, Medit i700, and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3, respectively ( P = 0.041).

Conclusion: All three scanners delivered clinically acceptable results; 3Shape TRIOS 3 yielded the highest accuracy and best marginal adaptation. Accuracy and marginal fit deteriorated as prosthesis span increased.

三维数字叠加技术评价三种口腔内扫描仪对单冠、三单元、交叉弓固定义齿的扫描精度及三维打印树脂固位器垂直边缘贴合测量的体外研究
目的:评价和比较三种3D打印树脂固位体在单冠、三单元和交叉弓固定局部义齿中的扫描精度和垂直边缘贴合测量。设置和设计:体外比较研究。材料和方法:上颌日清排印器,在#13、#23、#25、#27和#16处准备好基台,作为主模型。校准的Shining 3D实验室扫描仪提供了参考标准镶嵌语言(控制)。每个IOS生成6次扫描(n = 6/扫描仪;18次测试扫描)。在Geomagic Design x中通过最佳拟合叠加获得了准确性和准确性。54个单单元、三单元和交叉弓保持器被3d打印出来。使用数字立体显微镜(×20)测量中颊和中舌部位的垂直边缘差异。采用统计学分析:采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验对扫描仪和假体跨度进行比较。采用Pearson相关法评价真实度与边际拟合的关系,采用卡方检验评价临床可接受性。P值≤0.05认为有统计学意义。结果:3Shape TRIOS 3的真实度(28.5±5.2µm)和精度(18.2±3.1µm)最高,其次是Medit i700和Shining 3D Aoralscan 3 (P < 0.001)。3Shape TRIOS 3的边际差异最小(52.4±6.5µm),随跨度增大而增大。真实度与边际拟合呈正相关(r = 0.82; P < 0.001)。3Shape TRIOS 3、Medit i700、Shining 3D Aoralscan 3的临床可接受度分别为100%、94.4%、77.8% (P = 0.041)。结论:所有三种扫描仪都提供了临床可接受的结果;3Shape TRIOS 3获得了最高的精度和最佳的边缘适应。准确性和边缘拟合随着义肢长度的增加而恶化。
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
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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
小红书