Influence of Implant Scanbody Wear on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized In Vitro Trial.
accuracy
complete arch
digital impression
intraoral optical scanning
scanbody
wear
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jan 2022
25 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
30
12
2021
revised:
21
01
2022
accepted:
22
01
2022
entrez:
15
2
2022
pubmed:
16
2
2022
medline:
16
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant scanbody (ISB) wear on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch. A polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) edentulous mandibular model with four internal hexagonal interlocking conical connections was scanned with an extraoral optical scanner to achieve a reference file. Four cylindrical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) ISBs were scanned 30 times with IOS, and the test files were aligned to the reference file with a best-fit algorithm. For each analog linear (ΔX, ΔY and ΔZ-axis) and angular deviations (ΔANGLE) were assessed. Euclidean distance (ΔEUC) was calculated from the linear deviation, reporting a mean of 82 µm (SD 61) ranging from 8 to 347 µm. ΔANGLE error mean was 0.33° (SD 0.20), ranging from 0.02 to 0.92°. From a multivariate analysis, when ΔEUC was considered as a response variable, a significant influence of ISB wear by scan number in interaction to position for implant 3.6 was identified (
Identifiants
pubmed: 35160873
pii: ma15030927
doi: 10.3390/ma15030927
pmc: PMC8838002
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017 Jan 21;10(4):360-368
pubmed: 29682253
J Funct Biomater. 2021 Jun 06;12(2):
pubmed: 34204138
J Prosthodont. 2020 Oct;29(8):730-732
pubmed: 32608078
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Oct 5;32(1):70-80
pubmed: 27706264
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Nov-Dec;34(6 Suppl. 3):69-80
pubmed: 33412782
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb 14;16(4):
pubmed: 30769768
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jun;23(6):676-681
pubmed: 21631595
J Adv Prosthodont. 2020 Oct;12(5):307-315
pubmed: 33149852
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jan-Feb;27(1):102-10
pubmed: 22299086
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Jun;28(6):648-653
pubmed: 27150731
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Mar;111(3):186-94
pubmed: 24210732
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jun;26(6):715-9
pubmed: 24720423
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May;14 Suppl 1:e175-82
pubmed: 22171700
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Jun;125(6):918-923
pubmed: 32493568
J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan;27(1):35-41
pubmed: 27483210
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jun;24(6):659-65
pubmed: 22413889
Sci Rep. 2021 Nov 8;11(1):21892
pubmed: 34750515
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e751-64
pubmed: 25828851
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Aug;144(8):914-20
pubmed: 23904578
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:101-120
pubmed: 28944372
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Jan;123(1):96-104
pubmed: 31040026
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Mar;14(1):88-99
pubmed: 19686283
J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Sep;120(3):343-352
pubmed: 29627211
J Prosthodont Res. 2020 Apr;64(2):128-136
pubmed: 31255546
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Oct;114(4):469-73
pubmed: 26187099
Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416
pubmed: 6809663