In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy

Borbola, Daniel [Borbola, Dániel (szakfogorvosjelöl...), szerző] Helyreállító Fogászati és Endodonciai Klinika (SE / FOK); Berkei, Gabor [Berkei, Gábor (Fogorvos), szerző] Helyreállító Fogászati és Endodonciai Klinika (SE / FOK); Simon, Botond [Simon, Botond (egyetemi tanárseg...), szerző] Helyreállító Fogászati és Endodonciai Klinika (SE / FOK); Romanszky, Laszlo; Sersli, Gyorgy; DeFee, Michael; Renne, Walter; Mangano, Francesco; Vag, Janos ✉ [Vág, János (Fogászat), szerző] Helyreállító Fogászati és Endodonciai Klinika (SE / FOK)

Angol nyelvű Szakcikk (Folyóiratcikk) Tudományos
Megjelent: JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY 0300-5712 1879-176X 129 Paper: 104391 , 9 p. 2023
  • SJR Scopus - Dentistry (miscellaneous): D1
Azonosítók
Támogatások:
  • (142142)
  • Modern orvostudományi diagnosztikus eljárások és terápiák fejlesztése transzlációs megközelítésbe...(EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00006) Támogató: EFOP
Szakterületek:
  • Fogászat
Objectives The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners. Methods Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners. Results The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4μm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7μm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 μm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 μm) and Medit T710 (13-16 μm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31μm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 μm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 μm), and Medit T710 (20-23 μm). Conclusions All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy. Clinical Significance 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.
Hivatkozás stílusok: IEEEACMAPAChicagoHarvardCSLMásolásNyomtatás
2024-07-23 20:27