The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry · 2021
Trueness and Precision Achieved With Conventional and Digital Implant Impressions: A Comparative Investigation of Stone Versus 3-D Printed Master Casts.
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.
Mathey A, Brägger U, Joda T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To analyze implant casts obtained from intraoral optical scanning and conventional impressions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten optical scans (test) and ten conventional polyether impressions (control) were obtained from a two-implant reference model. Ten casts each were manufactured additively or from stone. All casts were digitized and virtually superimposed to the digital reference (trueness) applying a best-fit algorithm, and secondary analysis for intra-group comparisons (precision). The signed nearest neighbor distance of each surface point (FDI:24/26) was computed and deviations of the three-dimensional vectors (X,Y,Z) analyzed. The groups were compared with the Wilcoxon's rank sum test.
RESULTS: The printed casts had mean deviations of 106.0μm and the stone casts 187.9μm compared to the reference. Controls had significantly higher deviations and dispersion (p⟨0.001). The printed casts showed mean intra-group deviations of 149.8μm and the stone casts 181.2μm without significant differences (p=0.162). There was no statistically significant difference in any of the vector analyses (X:p=0.105, Y:p=0.089, Z:p=0.123).
CONCLUSION: Optical scanning seems to be an alternative to conventional impressions in terms of trueness and precision of implant master casts, simulating the scenario of a three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Digitally manufactured master casts might serve as reliable reference for the final restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten optical scans (test) and ten conventional polyether impressions (control) were obtained from a two-implant reference model. Ten casts each were manufactured additively or from stone. All casts were digitized and virtually superimposed to the digital reference (trueness) applying a best-fit algorithm, and secondary analysis for intra-group comparisons (precision). The signed nearest neighbor distance of each surface point (FDI:24/26) was computed and deviations of the three-dimensional vectors (X,Y,Z) analyzed. The groups were compared with the Wilcoxon's rank sum test.
RESULTS: The printed casts had mean deviations of 106.0μm and the stone casts 187.9μm compared to the reference. Controls had significantly higher deviations and dispersion (p⟨0.001). The printed casts showed mean intra-group deviations of 149.8μm and the stone casts 181.2μm without significant differences (p=0.162). There was no statistically significant difference in any of the vector analyses (X:p=0.105, Y:p=0.089, Z:p=0.123).
CONCLUSION: Optical scanning seems to be an alternative to conventional impressions in terms of trueness and precision of implant master casts, simulating the scenario of a three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Digitally manufactured master casts might serve as reliable reference for the final restorations.