> Detailanzeige

Ebeid, Kamal; Nouh, Ingy; Ashraf, Yasmine; Cesar, Paulo F.

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis
  • Beteiligte: Ebeid, Kamal; Nouh, Ingy; Ashraf, Yasmine; Cesar, Paulo F.
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2022
  • Erschienen in: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12918
  • ISSN: 1708-8240; 1496-4155
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>This study evaluated the accuracy of different laboratory scanners (LS) for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Two maxillary models that are designed to receive an all‐on‐four implant retained prosthesis were fabricated then scanned using five different LS. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30° and group 2; 45°). Each group was then subdivided into five subgroups according to the type of LS, subgroup T; Medit T710, subgroup I; IneosX5, subgroup E; 3ShapeE4, subgroup A; Autoscan DS‐Mix, and subgroup M; Ceramill Map600. An industrial 3D scanner was used as reference scanner, then each model was scanned with 5 LS 10 times. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic 3D analysis software.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Both scanner type and implant angle had a significant effect on the trueness (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). Significant interaction was found between the scanner type and implant angle (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). For scanner type tukeys post hoc test revealed highest trueness with the 3Shape E4 (21.3 ± 2.1) and the medit T710 (22.6 ± 2.1) and least trueness with the shining 3D autoscan ds‐mix (33.8 ± 3.0). Significantly better trueness was observed with the 30° than the 45° angle. Regarding precision, two‐way ANOVA revealed significant effect of the scanner type only (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). There were no significant differences between the 3Shape E4, medit T710, Ineos X5, and the Ceramill map600. However, all showed significantly higher precision values when compared to shining 3D autoscan ds‐mix.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>All tested scanners showed results within the clinically acceptable range with 3ShapeE4 and Medit T710 showing the highest accuracy.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Clinical significance</jats:title><jats:p>Tested scanners can be used for scanning of All‐on‐four implant supported prosthesis.</jats:p></jats:sec>