Comparison of different intraoral scanning techniques on the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.

Information about the accuracy of intraoral scanners for the edentulous maxilla is lacking. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of 3 different intraoral scanner techniques on a completely edentulous maxilla typodont. Two completely edentulous maxillary typodonts with (wrinkled typodont) and without (smooth typodont) palatal rugae were used as reference and were scanned by using an industrial metrological machine to obtain 2 digital reference scans in standard tessellation language (STL) format (dWT and dST). Three different scanning techniques were investigated: in the buccopalatal technique, the buccal vestibule was scanned with a longitudinal movement ending on the palatal vault with a posteroanterior direction; the S-shaped technique was based on an alternate palatobuccal and buccopalatal scan along the ridge; in the palatobuccal technique, the palate was scanned with a circular movement and then with a longitudinal one along the buccal vestibule. Consecutively, 6 types of scans were obtained (n=10), namely wrinkled typodont/buccopalatal technique, wrinkled typodont/S-shaped technique, wrinkled typodont/palatobuccal technique (wrinkled typodont), smooth typodont/buccopalatal technique, smooth typodont/S-shaped technique, and smooth typodont/palatobuccal technique (smooth typodont). Scans in STL format were imported into a dedicated software program, and trueness and precision were evaluated in μm. In addition to descriptive statistics (95% confidence interval), a 2-factor ANOVA on the data ranks, the Kruskal-Wallis, and the Dunn tests were performed to analyze differences among groups (α=.05). Mean values for trueness (95% confidence interval) were wrinkled typodont/buccopalatal technique=48.7 (37.8-59.5); wrinkled typodont/S-shaped technique=65.9 (54.9-77.4); wrinkled typodont/palatobuccal technique=109.7 (96.1-123.4); smooth typodont/buccopalatal technique=48.1 (42.4-53.7); smooth typodont/S-shaped technique=56.4 (43.9-68.9); smooth typodont/palatobuccal technique=61.1 (53.3-69), with statistically significant differences for wrinkled typodont/buccopalatal technique versus wrinkled typodont/palatobuccal technique (P<.001), buccopalatal technique versus palatobuccal technique (P<.001), and wrinkled typodont versus smooth typodont (P=.002). Mean values for precision (95% confidence interval) were wrinkled typodont/buccopalatal technique=46.7 (29.7-63.7); wrinkled typodont/S-shaped technique=53.6 (37.6-69.7); wrinkled typodont/palatobuccal technique=90 (59.1-120.9); smooth typodont/buccopalatal technique=46 (39.7-52.3); smooth typodont/S-shaped technique=76 (55.5-96.6); smooth typodont/palatobuccal technique=52.9 (41.9-63.8); with statistically significant differences for buccopalatal technique versus palatobuccal technique (P=.032) and wrinkled typodont/buccopalatal technique versus wrinkled typodont/palatobuccal technique (P=.012). Smooth typodont scans showed better trueness than wrinkled typodont scans. Buccopalatal technique showed better mean values for trueness and precision than palatobuccal technique only in the wrinkled typodont scenario, while the other scanning approaches did not show significant differences in either tested configuration.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.