Evaluation and comparison of the accuracy of three intraoral scanners for replicating a complete denture

被引:2
|
作者
Le Texier, Louise [1 ]
Nicolas, Emmanuel [1 ]
Batisse, Cindy [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Clermont Auvergne, Fac Odontol, Dept Odontol, Clermont Ferrand, France
[2] Univ Clermont Auvergne, Fac Odontol, Prosthet Dept, Clermont Ferrand, France
[3] Univ Clermont Auvergne, CROC, 2 Rue Braga, F-63000 Clermont Ferrand, France
来源
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY | 2024年 / 131卷 / 04期
关键词
PRECISION;
D O I
10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.011
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Statement of problem. Technological advances in digital acquisition tools have increased the scope of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scanning a removable complete denture (RCD) to replicate it. However, studies assessing the accuracy of IOSs for replicating a maxillary or mandibular RCD are lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3 IOSs while replicating a maxillary and mandibular RCD. Material and methods. One maxillary and 1 mandibular RCD were scanned with a desktop scanner (D2000) to obtain the reference model. Two operators scanned each RCD 5 times with 3 different IOSs (TRIOS 4, Primescan, and IS3800), following a predefined acquisition protocol. The 60 study models obtained were compared with the reference model using the Geomagic software program. For each comparison, the mean and standard deviation of discrepancy were calculated. Distances were measured on both the reference and the study model, and differences were calculated to assess whether sagittal or transverse deformations were present. The tolerance percentage of the volume of the digital model compared with the volume of the reference model was determined (difference tolerance was set at 0.1 mm). A univariate analysis of variance followed by a post hoc analysis using the Student-Newman-Keuls (alpha=.05) test was performed to determine the truest and the most precise IOS. Results. The TRIOS 4 and Primescan IOSs had comparable trueness, with mean dimensional variations of 47 +/- 27 mu m and 57 +/- 8 mu m respectively compared with the reference model. The IS3800 had a lower trueness (98 +/- 35 mu m). Primescan was significantly more precise with a mean standard deviation of 64 +/- 15 mu m (P<.05). The TRIOS 4 (141 +/- 48 <mu>m) and IS3800 (129 +/- 24 mu m) had comparable precision. Primescan showed the least sagittal and transverse deformation. Conclusions. This study determined that an RCD can be replicated using an IOS, although all IOSs did not have equal accuracy. An in vivo study needs to assess whether this procedure is clinically acceptable.
引用
收藏
页码:706.e1 / 706.e8
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A new method to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch: A pilot study
    Iturrate, Mikel
    Lizundia, Erlantz
    Amezua, Xabier
    Solaberrieta, Eneko
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, 2019, 11 (06): : 331 - 340
  • [32] Complete-arch accuracy of seven intraoral scanners measured by the virtual-fit method
    Borbola, Daniel
    Mikolicz, Akos
    Romanszky, Laszlo
    Sersli, Gyorgy
    DeFee, Michael
    Renne, Walter
    Vag, Janos
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 149
  • [33] Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision
    Lee, Sang J.
    Kim, Soo-Woo
    Lee, Joshua J.
    Cheong, Chan W.
    DENTISTRY JOURNAL, 2020, 8 (02)
  • [34] Clinical evaluation of three denture cushion adhesives by complete denture wearers
    Koronis, Spyros
    Pizatos, Evangelos
    Polyzois, Gregory
    Lagouvardos, Panagiotis
    GERODONTOLOGY, 2012, 29 (02) : E161 - E169
  • [35] Effect of preparation type on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study at different levels of accuracy evaluation
    Abduo, Jaafar
    Laskey, David
    JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2022, 34 (08) : 1221 - 1229
  • [36] Confocal 3D Optical Intraoral Scanners and Comparison of Image Capturing Accuracy
    Amornvit, Pokpong
    Rokaya, Dinesh
    Peampring, Chaimongkon
    Sanohkan, Sasiwimol
    CMC-COMPUTERS MATERIALS & CONTINUA, 2021, 66 (01): : 303 - 314
  • [37] In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses
    Costa, Vitoria
    Silva, Antonio Sergio
    Costa, Rosana
    Barreiros, Pedro
    Mendes, Joana
    Mendes, Jose Manuel
    DENTISTRY JOURNAL, 2022, 10 (06)
  • [38] Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible
    Liu, Chih-Te
    Chen, Jen-Hao
    Du, Je-Kang
    Hung, Chun-Cheng
    Lan, Ting-Hsun
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2024, 19 (01) : 466 - 472
  • [39] Comparison of the acquisition accuracy and digitizing noise of 9 intraoral and extraoral scanners: An objective method
    Dupagne, Lucien
    Tapie, Laurent
    Lebon, Nicolas
    Mawussi, Bernardin
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2022, 128 (05): : 1032 - 1040
  • [40] Awareness of Intraoral Scanners and Knowledge of Effects of Different Lights on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Among Dental Students and Practitioners
    Merchant, Aman
    Nallaswamy, Deepak
    Maiti, Subhabrata
    BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2020, 13 (07): : 85 - 90