The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Influence of implant scan body material and intraoral scanner system on the accuracy of three-unit implant scans.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gürpınar Bahar, Kanat-Ertürk Burcu, Karakuzu Mehmet, Tak Önjen
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of implant scans may be influenced by the intraoral scanner (IOS) system and the intraoral scan body (ISB) materials. However, evidence regarding their impact remains limited.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of 3-unit implant scans using different ISBs and IOSs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two implants were placed in the right first premolar and first molar regions of a mandibular typodont model, and a 3-dimensional printed replica was fabricated. Three ISBs (Hybrid, polyetheretherketone [PEEK], titanium) were scanned using 3 IOSs: CEREC Primescan (CP), iTero Lumina (iTL), TRIOS 5 (T5). An industrial blue-light scanner (ATOS) served as the reference. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing experimental scans onto the reference scan, and precision by superimposing repeated scans of the same IOS. Three-dimensional discrepancy values were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni (α=.05).
RESULTS: iTL demonstrated higher trueness and precision than other IOSs for all ISB groups (P<.05). Titanium ISBs showed lower trueness than PEEK and hybrid ISBs (P<.05), whereas no significant differences were observed between PEEK and hybrid ISBs (P>.05). For precision, significant differences among ISBs were observed only within the iTL group (P<.05); the titanium ISB showed the lowest precision.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, iTL demonstrated higher trueness and precision than the other IOSs tested, whereas PEEK and hybrid ISBs demonstrated higher trueness for 3-unit implant scans.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of 3-unit implant scans using different ISBs and IOSs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two implants were placed in the right first premolar and first molar regions of a mandibular typodont model, and a 3-dimensional printed replica was fabricated. Three ISBs (Hybrid, polyetheretherketone [PEEK], titanium) were scanned using 3 IOSs: CEREC Primescan (CP), iTero Lumina (iTL), TRIOS 5 (T5). An industrial blue-light scanner (ATOS) served as the reference. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing experimental scans onto the reference scan, and precision by superimposing repeated scans of the same IOS. Three-dimensional discrepancy values were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni (α=.05).
RESULTS: iTL demonstrated higher trueness and precision than other IOSs for all ISB groups (P<.05). Titanium ISBs showed lower trueness than PEEK and hybrid ISBs (P<.05), whereas no significant differences were observed between PEEK and hybrid ISBs (P>.05). For precision, significant differences among ISBs were observed only within the iTL group (P<.05); the titanium ISB showed the lowest precision.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, iTL demonstrated higher trueness and precision than the other IOSs tested, whereas PEEK and hybrid ISBs demonstrated higher trueness for 3-unit implant scans.