DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.b1244373, PubMed-ID: 33880909Seiten: 488-495, Sprache: Englisch
Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy performance of five different intraoral scanning systems for a full-arch scan on an edentulous cadaver maxilla. Method and materials: Five digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a fully edentulous cadaver maxilla. A master scan obtained with an ATOS Capsule industrial grade scanner provided the point of comparison. Experimental scans were compared to the master scan using a metrology software that allows images to be overlayed on one another and deviations interpreted. Once aligned, three comparisons were made between the experimental scans and the reference: the entire maxilla, the ridge area only, and the palate area only.
Results: Trueness deviations between the experimental scans and the master digital model were up to 0.1 mm in the 75th percentile. For the whole maxilla, only the Medit scanner had statistically significantly inferior trueness compared to other scanners. When only the palate was considered, Medit was significantly different from Element (P = .0025) and Trios 4 (P = .0040), with no differences found between other scanners. For the ridge region the results replicate the trend observed for the whole maxilla. In regard to precision, differences were found only in the whole maxilla and the ridge area. In both areas, only Medit’s precision was significantly different compared to other scanners, with the exception of Element. However, Element performance was similar to all other scanners.
Conclusion: Most intraoral scanners exhibited similar performance. Although several statistically significant differences were identified, the clinical impact of these variances is probably not meaningful. (Quintessence Int 2021;52:488–495; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b1244373)
Schlagwörter: digital dentistry, digital impressions, edentulous