Alexander Schmidt, Cara Berschin, Bernd Wöstmann, Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz
{"title":"2023 年数字化种植体印模准确性的最新进展:基于坐标的分析","authors":"Alexander Schmidt, Cara Berschin, Bernd Wöstmann, Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To update data on the transfer accuracy of digital implant impressions by using a coordinate-based analysis, latest intraoral scanners (IOSs) were investigated in an established clinical close model set-up.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An implant master model (IMM) of the maxilla with four implants in the posterior area (#14/#24 and #16/#26) and a reference cube was scanned with four different IOS (i700 (Medit), Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 and Trios 5 (3Shape) ten times each. Datasets were compared with a reference dataset of IMM that was generated with x-ray computed tomography in advance. 3D deviations for the implant-abutment-interface points (IAIPs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by multifactorial ANOVA (p < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall deviations for trueness (mean) ± precision (SD) of the IAIPs ranged from 88±47 μm for the Primescan, followed by 112±57 μm for the i700, 121±42 μm for the Trios 4 and 124±43 μm for the Trios 5 with decreasing accuracy along the scan path. For trueness, one significant difference between the Primescan and the T4 was detected for one implant position. For precision, no significant differences were noticed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the latest IOS showed a significant improvement in transfer accuracy, the accumulating deviation along the scan path is not yet resolved. Considering the Trios system, the innovation seems to be limited as no improvement could be detected between Trios 4 and 5.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Update on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions in 2023: A Coordinate-Based Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Schmidt, Cara Berschin, Bernd Wöstmann, Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.8843\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To update data on the transfer accuracy of digital implant impressions by using a coordinate-based analysis, latest intraoral scanners (IOSs) were investigated in an established clinical close model set-up.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An implant master model (IMM) of the maxilla with four implants in the posterior area (#14/#24 and #16/#26) and a reference cube was scanned with four different IOS (i700 (Medit), Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 and Trios 5 (3Shape) ten times each. Datasets were compared with a reference dataset of IMM that was generated with x-ray computed tomography in advance. 3D deviations for the implant-abutment-interface points (IAIPs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by multifactorial ANOVA (p < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall deviations for trueness (mean) ± precision (SD) of the IAIPs ranged from 88±47 μm for the Primescan, followed by 112±57 μm for the i700, 121±42 μm for the Trios 4 and 124±43 μm for the Trios 5 with decreasing accuracy along the scan path. For trueness, one significant difference between the Primescan and the T4 was detected for one implant position. For precision, no significant differences were noticed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the latest IOS showed a significant improvement in transfer accuracy, the accumulating deviation along the scan path is not yet resolved. Considering the Trios system, the innovation seems to be limited as no improvement could be detected between Trios 4 and 5.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-22\",\"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.8843\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8843","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Update on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions in 2023: A Coordinate-Based Analysis.
Purpose: To update data on the transfer accuracy of digital implant impressions by using a coordinate-based analysis, latest intraoral scanners (IOSs) were investigated in an established clinical close model set-up.
Materials and methods: An implant master model (IMM) of the maxilla with four implants in the posterior area (#14/#24 and #16/#26) and a reference cube was scanned with four different IOS (i700 (Medit), Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 and Trios 5 (3Shape) ten times each. Datasets were compared with a reference dataset of IMM that was generated with x-ray computed tomography in advance. 3D deviations for the implant-abutment-interface points (IAIPs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by multifactorial ANOVA (p < .05).
Results: Overall deviations for trueness (mean) ± precision (SD) of the IAIPs ranged from 88±47 μm for the Primescan, followed by 112±57 μm for the i700, 121±42 μm for the Trios 4 and 124±43 μm for the Trios 5 with decreasing accuracy along the scan path. For trueness, one significant difference between the Primescan and the T4 was detected for one implant position. For precision, no significant differences were noticed.
Conclusions: Although the latest IOS showed a significant improvement in transfer accuracy, the accumulating deviation along the scan path is not yet resolved. Considering the Trios system, the innovation seems to be limited as no improvement could be detected between Trios 4 and 5.