Premium
An In Vitro Study of Factors Influencing the Performance of Digital Intraoral Impressions Operating on Active Wavefront Sampling Technology with Multiple Implants in the Edentulous Maxilla
Author(s) -
GimenezGonzalez Beatriz,
Hassan Bassam,
Özcan Mutlu,
Pradíes Guillermo
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.12457
Subject(s) - repeatability , scanner , implant , biomedical engineering , wavefront , orthodontics , dentistry , mathematics , computer science , medicine , artificial intelligence , optics , statistics , surgery , physics
Purpose To evaluate the performance (accuracy and repeatability) and the factors affecting the clinical performance of a recently released intraoral scanner based on active wavefront sampling technology. Materials and Methods A single resin model of an edentulous maxilla fitted with six implants inserted at various depths and angulations was measured with a coordinated measuring machine (CMM) at 3 to 5 μm, and this acted as the “true,” or reference, values of the study. Six corresponding cylindrical PEEK scanbodies were then mounted onto the implants, and four calibrated observers independently repeated the digital intraoral scan five times with a True Definition (TrueDef) scanner. Using implant position #15 as a reference, five linear and angular measurements were compared with the reference values (CMM), and the data were analyzed via one‐way ANOVA and two‐sample t ‐test. Results Mean linear and angular deviations for the TrueDef from CMM measurements were from 5.38 ± 12.61 μm to –26.97 ± 50.56 μm and from 0.16º ± 0.04º to –0.43º ± 0.1º, respectively. Experienced observers performed significantly better than inexperienced ones ( p = 0.006), and scan distance (quadrant) significantly affected scanning accuracy ( p = 0.003). Visible length of the scanbody affected measurement accuracy ( p = 0.0001), while implant angulation did not ( p = 0.757). Conclusions The TrueDef scanner provides measurements within clinically accepted limits. Yet scanbody visibility, observer experience, and scan length remain relevant factors affecting accuracy.