Accuracy evaluation of two different intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A comparative in vitro study


Submitted: 2 November 2023
Accepted: 5 January 2024
Published: 5 March 2024
Abstract Views: 245
PDF: 226
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Aim To test differences in term of accuracy among two Intraoral Scanners used in implant fixed prosthodontics.
Materials and methods A reference stone model was prepared, representing a partially edentulous maxilla on area #23 and from #14 to #16, with three implant analogues and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) scanbody screwed on to represent the situation of a single crown on implant (SB) and a implant-supported partial prosthesis (2SB). The model was digitized with a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Tokyo, Japan) used as a reference, and with two intraoral scanners (Trios 3; 3Shape A/S; I700, Medit). Ten scans
were performed using the two different intraoral scanner. Scanning and processing time as well as the number of images were reordered for each scanner. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagic Control X 2018), where digital impressions were superimposed on the reference model to evaluate trueness in the full arch, in the SB area (#23) and in the2SB area(#14 and #16).Therefore, all the scans of the same group were superimposed onto the cast that recorded the best result of trueness whose trueness corresponded to the actual reference value for precision. Mann-Whitney U-test test was performed to analyze differences between the groups (P<0,05) (SPSS software Version 26,IBM).
Results Statistically significative differences where found between Medit i700 and TRIOS 3 regarding trueness and precision in the full arch , with Trios 3 showing better results than Medit I700. Trios 3 performed statistically better also in the 2SB area regarding precision.
No statistically significative differences were found regarding trueness and precision in the other ares.
Conclusions Trios 3 performed statistically significative better than Medit I700 in acquiring scanbody position when the full arch model was analyzed. Both the tested Intraoral scanners reordered good values in line with the previous literature.


Verniani, G., Casucci, A., Nosrati, N., D’Arienzo, L. F., Val, M., & Ferrari Cagidiaco, E. (2024). Accuracy evaluation of two different intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A comparative in vitro study. Journal of Osseointegration, 16(1), 61–64. https://doi.org/10.23805/JO.2024.619

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations