Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained by Different Intraoral Scanners Compared with The Laboratory Scanner for Implants Placed in Partially Edentulous Mandible: An In Vitro Study. | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Volume 71, Issue 1 - Serial Number 4, January 2025, Page 611-618 PDF (1.96 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2024.329328.3236 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Omar Sherif Abdelrahman   1; Amal Fathy Kaddah 2; Mohamed Farouk Abdallah 3; Nermeen Ahmed Hassan 4
| ||||
| 1Master Candidate, Master Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. | ||||
| 2Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. | ||||
| 3Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University and Galala University. | ||||
| 4Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (Medit i700, 3Shape TRIOS 4 and Carestream CS3600) versus the desktop lab scanner for implants placed in Kennedy class II partially edentulous mandible. Methodology: A 3D-printed resin cast simulating a Kennedy Class II mandibular arch with two implants, in the first premolar and first molar regions, was used. Each scan body and the mucosal part of the edentulous area were scanned once by a laboratory scanner to establish a reference standard. Then, they were scanned five times with each intraoral scanner. The scans were compared using Geomagic Control X software to measure the root mean square (RMS) deviation. Statistical tests were conducted to assess and compare trueness and precision between and within groups. Results: For trueness, the One-Way ANOVA test showed no statistically significant differences among the three groups for anterior scan body, posterior scan body, and mucosal part (P-values: 0.14, 0.45, and 0.40 respectively). For precision, significant differences were found in the posterior scan body (P=0.03) and mucosal part (P=0.004), with the TRIOS 4 scanner demonstrating the highest precision. No significant differences between the three intraoral scanners were observed for the anterior scan body part (P=0.09). Conclusions: The study revealed that intraoral scanners exhibit varying precision for different anatomical regions, despite comparable trueness. This underscores the necessity of carefully considering scanner selection based on clinical requirements to guarantee accurate digital impressions and optimal treatment outcomes. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Implants; Trueness; Precision; Intraoral scanners; Kennedy class II | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 138 PDF Download: 94 |
||||
