Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans.
Gómez-Polo, Miguel; Cascos, Rocío; Ortega, Rocío; Barmak, Abdul B; Kois, John C; Revilla-León, Marta.
Affiliation
  • Gómez-Polo M; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, Director of Postgraduate Program of Advanced in Implant-Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
  • Cascos R; Advanced in Implant-Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
  • Ortega R; Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
  • Barmak AB; Clinical Research and Biostatistics, Eastman Institute of Oral Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
  • Kois JC; Kois Center, Private Practice, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
  • Revilla-León M; Graduate Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 34(6): 591-601, 2023 Jun.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37052054
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS). MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4) occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).

RESULTS:

Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Computer-Aided Design Language: En Year: 2023 Type: Article

Full text: 1 Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Computer-Aided Design Language: En Year: 2023 Type: Article