Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners.
Khoshkhahesh, Maryam; Enteghad, Shabnam; Aghasadeghi, Kiana; Farzin, Mitra; Taghva, Masumeh; Mosadad, Seyed Ali.
Afiliação
  • Khoshkhahesh M; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
  • Enteghad S; Department of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  • Aghasadeghi K; Student Research Committee, Islamic Azad University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran.
  • Farzin M; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
  • Taghva M; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
  • Mosadad SA; Department of Research Analytics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
Clin Exp Dent Res ; 10(3): e899, 2024 Jun.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38752461
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.

RESULTS:

Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (p value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (p value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.

CONCLUSION:

For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Técnica de Moldagem Odontológica Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Exp Dent Res Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Irã

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Técnica de Moldagem Odontológica Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Clin Exp Dent Res Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Irã