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

(1) Objectives: The aim is to measure the influence of different intraoral (crowding and molar inclination) and extraoral (surface material and ambient light) conditions on the efficacy and efficiency of intraoral scanning. (2) Methods: In a controlled in vitro experimental study, the samples were divided into six groups showing two types of intraoral conditions-lower incisor crowding (groups 1-3) and lower molar mesial tipping (groups 4-6). Each modified model was replicated using three types of materials with different light-absorption properties ( n = 18 models). Each sample was scanned 30 times at light intensities of 0.0, 1800, or 3600 l×, yielding 3240 scans. Scanning efficiency (digital acquisition; scanning chair-time; and scanning failures) and scanning efficacy (undetected volume) were assessed using virtual superimpositions and Mecano Equate software. The intra- and interobserver error and reliability of the method were calculated and data analyses were performed using the t -test, paired t -test, and one-way analysis of variance ( p &lt; 0.05). (3) Results: Digital acquisition was influenced by the degree of crowding and molar inclination ( p &lt; 0.05). The scanning surface material affected the efficacy and efficiency, which were lower with a calcium sulfate hemihydrate A modified compound scanning surface ( p &lt; 0.05). Higher intensities of ambient light in the scanning room were associated with reduced scanning efficacy ( p &lt; 0.05). Moreover, the scanner showed greater amounts of undetected volume as the degrees of crowding and mesial tipping of the lower second molar increased over 25°, with mean error values of 0.97 mm 3 and 1.12 mm 3 , respectively. (4) Conclusions: For scanning procedures employing digital acquisition, differences in the degrees of crowding and mesial tipping of the lower second molar, scanning surface material, and external light source intensity influence the efficacy and efficiency of the scanning procedures, scanning chair-time, scanning failures, and undetected volume.

Personalized Dental Medicine: Impact of Intraoral and Extraoral Clinical Variables on the Precision and Efficiency of Intraoral Scanning