> Detailanzeige

Ashraf, Yasmine; Abo El Fadl, Ahmad; Hamdy, Amina; Ebeid, Kamal

Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning 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: Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis
  • Beteiligte: Ashraf, Yasmine; Abo El Fadl, Ahmad; Hamdy, Amina; Ebeid, Kamal
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2023
  • Erschienen in: Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13070
  • ISSN: 1496-4155; 1708-8240
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>This study evaluated the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS) for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations with and without scanbodies splinting.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Two maxillary models were designed and fabricated to receive an all‐on‐four implant retained. 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 divided into three subgroups according to the type of IOS used: Subgroup C; Primescan, subgroup T; Trios4, and subgroup M; Medit i600. Then each subgroup was divided into two divisions according to scanning technique; division S: splinted and division N: nonsplinted. Ten scans were made by each scanner for every division. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic controlX analysis software.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Angulation had no significant effect on both the trueness (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.854) and precision (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.347). Splinting had a significant effect on trueness and precision (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). Scanner type had a significant effect on trueness (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001) and precision (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.001). There was no significant difference between trueness of Trios 4 (112.15 ± 12.85) and Primescan (106.75 ± 22.58). However, there was a significant difference when compared to trueness of Medit i600 (158.50 ± 27.65). For the precision results Cerec Primescan showed the highest precision (95.45 ± 33.21). There was a significant difference between the three scanners, precision of Trios4 (109.72 ± 19.24) and Medit i600 (121.21 ± 17.26).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Cerec Primescan has higher trueness and precision than Trios 4 and Medit i600 in full arch implants scanning. Splinting the scanbodies improve the accuracy of full arch implants scanning.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Clinical Significance</jats:title><jats:p>Cerec Primescan and 3Shape Trios 4 can be used for scanning of All‐on‐four implant supported prosthesis when scanbodies are splinted using a modular chain device.</jats:p></jats:sec>