Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2025
Influence of edentulous span length on complete-arch intraoral scanner accuracy: a comparative in vitro study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mayer Yaniv, Berg Yarden, Kfir Or, Triestino Alessio, Gutmacher Zvi, Canullo Luigi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of edentulous span length on the accuracy of two intraoral scanner (IOS) devices Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) and Trios 3 (3Shape) in complete-arch scenarios. The hypothesis was that accuracy would decline with increasing span length, with performance differences between scanners.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: An in vitro study was conducted using a maxillary complete-arch model with a central incisor implant. Twelve span-length scenarios (FA1 to FA12) were created by sequentially removing adjacent teeth. Each condition was scanned 10 times using both IOS devices (n = 240). A laboratory scanner (Identica blue, Medit) provided reference scans. Trueness (vs reference) and precision (intra-group) were evaluated using root mean square (RMS) error. Scans were aligned via automatic and local best-fit in Medit Design. Statistical analysis included two-way mixed ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and linear regression with Bonferroni correction (α = .004).
RESULTS: Trios 3 demonstrated lower overall RMS values (0.296 ± 0.043 mm) than Primescan (0.338 ± 0.049 mm), with significant differences in 9 of 12 scenarios (P .001). Correlation with span length was stronger for Primescan (R2 = 0.892) than Trios 3 (R2 = 0.674). Both devices showed high reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing edentulous span length negatively impacts scanner accuracy. Devices demonstrating consistent performance are preferable for reliable full-arch digital workflows. (Quintessence Int 2025;56:618-625; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b639465).
METHOD AND MATERIALS: An in vitro study was conducted using a maxillary complete-arch model with a central incisor implant. Twelve span-length scenarios (FA1 to FA12) were created by sequentially removing adjacent teeth. Each condition was scanned 10 times using both IOS devices (n = 240). A laboratory scanner (Identica blue, Medit) provided reference scans. Trueness (vs reference) and precision (intra-group) were evaluated using root mean square (RMS) error. Scans were aligned via automatic and local best-fit in Medit Design. Statistical analysis included two-way mixed ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and linear regression with Bonferroni correction (α = .004).
RESULTS: Trios 3 demonstrated lower overall RMS values (0.296 ± 0.043 mm) than Primescan (0.338 ± 0.049 mm), with significant differences in 9 of 12 scenarios (P .001). Correlation with span length was stronger for Primescan (R2 = 0.892) than Trios 3 (R2 = 0.674). Both devices showed high reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: Increasing edentulous span length negatively impacts scanner accuracy. Devices demonstrating consistent performance are preferable for reliable full-arch digital workflows. (Quintessence Int 2025;56:618-625; doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b639465).