Saurabh Jain, Mohammed E Sayed, Reem Abdullah A Khawaji, Ghada Ali J Hakami, Eman Hassan M Solan, Manal A Daish, Hossam F Jokhadar, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Majed S Altoman, Abdullah Hasan Alshehri, Saeed M Alqahtani, Mohammad Alamri, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Hind Ziyad Al-Najjar, Khurshid Mattoo
{"title":"三种口腔内扫描仪记录全弓种植体支持义齿印模的准确性:一项体外研究。","authors":"Saurabh Jain, Mohammed E Sayed, Reem Abdullah A Khawaji, Ghada Ali J Hakami, Eman Hassan M Solan, Manal A Daish, Hossam F Jokhadar, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Majed S Altoman, Abdullah Hasan Alshehri, Saeed M Alqahtani, Mohammad Alamri, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Hind Ziyad Al-Najjar, Khurshid Mattoo","doi":"10.12659/MSM.946624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND This study used an edentulous mandibular resin model with 6 parallel osteotomy sites and aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 10 digital impressions using 3 intraoral scanners, the 3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan, using Medit Link v3.3.2 software. MATERIAL AND METHODS A model simulating a patient's lower jaw was surgically prepared at 6 parallel sites (implant osteotomy), allowing placement of 6 implant analogues. Matrix-Direct transfer abutments were attached to the analogs, and a reference scan was obtained using a CeramilMap 600 extraoral scanner. Three intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan) made 10 digital impressions of each model. The data obtained were superimposed and compared using software (Medit Link 3.3.2) to evaluate accuracy. Mean values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Differences were considered significant at a P value of less than 0.05. RESULTS The TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation for precision (37.8±4.53 μm) and trueness (54.9±11 μm), followed by Medit i700 (precision 40.6±4.17 μm, trueness 60.5±10.9 μm), whereas the highest deviation (precision: 49.1±8.31 μm, trueness: 72.3±10.4 μm) was reported when Primescan intraoral scanner was used for recording impressions of full arch implants. When the 3 intraoral scanners were compared, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of precision (P<0.005) and trueness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation values for precision and trueness (more accurate), followed by Medit i700 and Primescan intraoral scanners. However, deviation values of all scanners were within clinically acceptable limits.</p>","PeriodicalId":48888,"journal":{"name":"Medical Science Monitor","volume":"30 ","pages":"e946624"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636004/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Saurabh Jain, Mohammed E Sayed, Reem Abdullah A Khawaji, Ghada Ali J Hakami, Eman Hassan M Solan, Manal A Daish, Hossam F Jokhadar, Saad Saleh AlResayes, Majed S Altoman, Abdullah Hasan Alshehri, Saeed M Alqahtani, Mohammad Alamri, Ahid Amer Alshahrani, Hind Ziyad Al-Najjar, Khurshid Mattoo\",\"doi\":\"10.12659/MSM.946624\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>BACKGROUND This study used an edentulous mandibular resin model with 6 parallel osteotomy sites and aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 10 digital impressions using 3 intraoral scanners, the 3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan, using Medit Link v3.3.2 software. MATERIAL AND METHODS A model simulating a patient's lower jaw was surgically prepared at 6 parallel sites (implant osteotomy), allowing placement of 6 implant analogues. Matrix-Direct transfer abutments were attached to the analogs, and a reference scan was obtained using a CeramilMap 600 extraoral scanner. Three intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan) made 10 digital impressions of each model. The data obtained were superimposed and compared using software (Medit Link 3.3.2) to evaluate accuracy. Mean values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Differences were considered significant at a P value of less than 0.05. RESULTS The TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation for precision (37.8±4.53 μm) and trueness (54.9±11 μm), followed by Medit i700 (precision 40.6±4.17 μm, trueness 60.5±10.9 μm), whereas the highest deviation (precision: 49.1±8.31 μm, trueness: 72.3±10.4 μm) was reported when Primescan intraoral scanner was used for recording impressions of full arch implants. When the 3 intraoral scanners were compared, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of precision (P<0.005) and trueness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation values for precision and trueness (more accurate), followed by Medit i700 and Primescan intraoral scanners. However, deviation values of all scanners were within clinically acceptable limits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"volume\":\"30 \",\"pages\":\"e946624\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636004/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Science Monitor\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.946624\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Science Monitor","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.946624","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.
BACKGROUND This study used an edentulous mandibular resin model with 6 parallel osteotomy sites and aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 10 digital impressions using 3 intraoral scanners, the 3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan, using Medit Link v3.3.2 software. MATERIAL AND METHODS A model simulating a patient's lower jaw was surgically prepared at 6 parallel sites (implant osteotomy), allowing placement of 6 implant analogues. Matrix-Direct transfer abutments were attached to the analogs, and a reference scan was obtained using a CeramilMap 600 extraoral scanner. Three intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan) made 10 digital impressions of each model. The data obtained were superimposed and compared using software (Medit Link 3.3.2) to evaluate accuracy. Mean values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Differences were considered significant at a P value of less than 0.05. RESULTS The TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation for precision (37.8±4.53 μm) and trueness (54.9±11 μm), followed by Medit i700 (precision 40.6±4.17 μm, trueness 60.5±10.9 μm), whereas the highest deviation (precision: 49.1±8.31 μm, trueness: 72.3±10.4 μm) was reported when Primescan intraoral scanner was used for recording impressions of full arch implants. When the 3 intraoral scanners were compared, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of precision (P<0.005) and trueness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation values for precision and trueness (more accurate), followed by Medit i700 and Primescan intraoral scanners. However, deviation values of all scanners were within clinically acceptable limits.
期刊介绍:
Medical Science Monitor (MSM) established in 1995 is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal which publishes original articles in Clinical Medicine and related disciplines such as Epidemiology and Population Studies, Product Investigations, Development of Laboratory Techniques :: Diagnostics and Medical Technology which enable presentation of research or review works in overlapping areas of medicine and technology such us (but not limited to): medical diagnostics, medical imaging systems, computer simulation of health and disease processes, new medical devices, etc. Reviews and Special Reports - papers may be accepted on the basis that they provide a systematic, critical and up-to-date overview of literature pertaining to research or clinical topics. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews. A special attention will be paid to a teaching value of a review paper.
Medical Science Monitor is internationally indexed in Thomson-Reuters Web of Science, Journals Citation Report (JCR), Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI), Index Medicus MEDLINE, PubMed, PMC, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Chemical Abstracts CAS and Index Copernicus.