Digital workflow use is now well-established for single crowns and fixed partial dentures with up to six units 6, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. The digital workflow is already routinely used in dental surgery, especially in implantology, and is increasingly utilized for the design and production of dental splints, and fixed dental protheses. When fixed dental prostheses are fully digitally fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM), without any gypsum cast, they often provide a better marginal and internal fit 13, 14. The adoption of such techniques over conventional impression methods is mainly due to the reduced overall treatment time, ease of use, higher inter-operator reproducibility, and the ability to perform a quick repeat if imprecise scanned areas are noticed 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. The scanning of an impression or gypsum model is being progressively replaced by direct powder-free intraoral three-dimensional data collection 1, 2, 3, 4. There exist several available intraoral scanning systems that use advanced technology. Trial registration: Registration number at the German Clinical Trial Register (): DRKS00027988 ( ). However, they should be used with caution in the posterior region. Digital impressions of the complete arch are a suitable and reliable alternative to conventional impressions. The digital impression devices yielded higher local deviations within the complete arch. Full-arch trueness was comparable when using Affinis and the two intraoral scanners CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3. Full-arch comparisons revealed significant differences between AF vs. the posterior segment, significantly less deviations were observed for anterior with CO ( pā<ā0.001) and TR ( pā<ā0.001). The mean distance for trueness ranged from 0.005 mm (TR) to 0.023 mm (IM) for the full arch, from 0.001 mm (CO) to 0.068 mm (IM) for the anterior segment, and from 0.019 mm (AF) to 0.042 mm (IM) for the posterior segment. Statistically significant discrepancies were calculated using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Surface matching software (Atos Professional) enabled to determine the mean deviations (mean distances) from the reference casts. Intraoral scanning was performed using CEREC Omnicam (CO) and Trios 3 (TR). Casts obtained from polyether impressions were also scanned using an industrial blue light scanner to construct 3D reference models. Gypsum casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner (IM, AF). Full-arch impressions were taken using polyether and polyvinylsiloxane. The aim of this study was to compare the trueness of complete- and partial-arch impressions obtained using conventional impression materials and intraoral scanners in vivo.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |