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

Background To compare the accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Methods A master cast containing 6 implant abutment replicas was fabricated. Group PG: digital impressions were taken 10 times using a photogrammetry system; Group IOS: intraoral scanning was performed to fabricate 10 digital impressions; Group CNV: splinted open-tray impression technique was used to fabricate 10 definitive casts. The master cast and conventional definitive casts were digitized with a laboratory reference scanner. For all STL files obtained, scan bodies were converted to implant abutment replicas using a digital library. The accuracy of a digitizer was defined by 2 main parameters, trueness and precision. "Trueness" was used to describe the deviation between test files and reference file, and "precision" was used to describe the closeness between test files. Then, the trueness and precision of three impression techniques were evaluated and statistically compared (α = 0.05). Results The median trueness was 24.45, 43.45 and 28.70 μm for group PG, IOS and CNV; Group PG gave more accurate trueness than group IOS ( P  &lt; 0.001) and group CNV ( P  = 0.033), group CNV showed more accurate trueness than group IOS ( P  = 0.033). The median precision was 2.00, 36.00 and 29.40 μm for group PG, IOS and CNV; Group PG gave more accurate precision than group IOS ( P  &lt; 0.001) and group CNV ( P  &lt; 0.001), group CNV showed more accurate precision than IOS ( P  = 0.002). Conclusions For complete-arch implant rehabilitation, the photogrammetry system showed the best accuracy of all the impression techniques evaluated, followed by the conventional impression technique, and the intraoral scanner provided the least accuracy.

bmc oral health

Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study