English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives To compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of direct digitization of four different dental gap situation with two IOS (intraoral scanner). Materials and methods Four partially edentulous polyurethane mandible models were used: (1) A (46, 45, 44 missing), (2) B (45, 44, 34, 35 missing), (3) C (42, 41, 31, 32 missing), and (4) D (full dentition). On each model, the same reference object was fixed between the second molars of both quadrants. A dataset (REF) of the reference object was generated by a coordinate measuring machine. Each model situation was scanned by (1) OMN (Cerec AC Omnicam) and (2) PRI (Cerec Primescan AC) ( n  = 30). Datasets of all 8 test groups ( N  = 240) were analyzed using inspection software to determine the linear aberrations in the X-, Y-, Z-axes and angular deviations. Mann–Whitney  U  and two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests were used to detect differences for trueness and precision. Results PRI revealed higher trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters (   $${\overrightarrow{V}}_{E}$$  V → E  120.95 to 175.01 μm,    $$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$  V → E ( x ) − 58.50 to − 9.40 μm,    $$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$  V → E ( z ) − 70.35 to 63.50 μm), while OMN showed higher trueness for    $$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$  V → E  ( y ) regardless of model situation (− 104.90 to 34.55 μm). Model D revealed the highest trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters regardless of IOS (   $$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$  V → E  120.95 to 195.74 μm,    $$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$  V → E ( x ) − 9.40 to 66.75 μm,   $$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$  V → E ( y ) − 14.55 to 51.50 μm,    $$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$  V → E ( z ) 63.50 to 120.75 μm). Conclusions PRI demonstrated higher accuracy in the X- and Z-axes, while OMN depicted higher trueness in the Y-axis. For PRI, Model A revealed the highest distortion, while for OMN, Model B produced the largest aberrations in most parameters. Clinical relevance Current results suggest that both investigated IOS are sufficiently accurate for the manufacturing of tooth-borne restorations and orthodontic appliances. However, both hardware specifications of IOS and the presence of edentulous gaps in the dental model have an influence on the accuracy of the virtual model dataset.

Accuracy of full-arch digitalization for partially edentulous jaws — a laboratory study on basis of coordinate-based data analysis