Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

BMC Oral Health

Henriette Lerner¹  Matteo Bonacina²  Carlo Mangano³  Francesco Guido Mangano⁴  Oleg Admakin⁴  Vygandas Rutkunas⁵ 

[1] Academic Teaching and Research Institution of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany;Ars and Technology, Sotto il Monte Giovanni XXIII, 24039, Bergamo, Italy;Department of Dental Sciences, Vita and Salute University San Raffaele, 20132, Milan, Italy;Department of Prevention and Communal Dentistry, Sechenov First State Medical University, 119992, Moscow, Russia;Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, LT-01513, Vilnius, Lithuania;

关键词: Intraoral scanner;    Full-arch implant impression;    Scanbody;    Trueness;    Comparative study;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-020-01254-9

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThe literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression.MethodsA stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed.ResultsWith the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation.ConclusionsDifferent levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

【 授权许可】

CC BY