scholarly journals The effect of scanned area on the accuracy and time of anterior single implant scans: an in vitro study

2021 ◽  
pp. 103620
Author(s):  
Burak Yilmaz ◽  
Vinicius Rizzo-Marques ◽  
Xiaohan Guo ◽  
Diogo Gouveia ◽  
Samir Abou-Ayash
2021 ◽  
pp. 103684
Author(s):  
Burak Yilmaz ◽  
Diogo Gouveia ◽  
Vinicius Rizzo Marques ◽  
Emre Diker ◽  
Martin Schimmel ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 103925
Author(s):  
Yu Pan ◽  
Caiyun Heng ◽  
Zhi-Jie Wu ◽  
Juliana Tam ◽  
Richard TC Hsung ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 103773
Author(s):  
Gülce Çakmak ◽  
Mustafa Borga Donmez ◽  
Sevda Atalay ◽  
Hakan Yilmaz ◽  
Ali Murat Kökat ◽  
...  

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 2843
Author(s):  
Xi Ren ◽  
Keunbada Son ◽  
Kyu-Bok Lee

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the proximal and occlusal contacts of single implant crowns fabricated with four data capture methods. The resin models were mounted on an articulator, digitized using a laboratory scanner, and saved as a standard tessellation language (STL) file to serve as the master reference model (MRM). Two different intraoral scan body (ISB) systems were evaluated: polyetheretherketone (PEEK) short scan body (SSB) and PEEK long scan body (LSB) (n = 12). The digital impressions (SSB and LSB) were acquired using an intraoral scanner with ISB. Two different conventional techniques were also evaluated: PEEK short scan body with coping plastic cap (CPC) and pick-up coping (PUC) (n = 12). The implant impressions (CPC and PUC) were recorded using a conventional impression technique. The crown and abutment were fabricated with a milling machine and then placed on the resin model and scanned using a laboratory scanner. The scanned files were saved as STL files to serve as test datasets. The MRM and test datasets were superimposed, and the mesial, distal, and occlusal distances were calculated using a 3D inspection software and statistically analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis H test (α = 0.05). The direct data capture group had more accurate contact points on the three surfaces, with mesial contact of 64.7 (12.8) µm followed by distal contact of 65.4 (15) µm and occlusal contact of 147 (35.8) µm in the SSB group, and mesial contact of 84.9 (22.6) µm followed by distal contact of 69.5 (19.2) µm and occlusal contact of 115.9 (27.7) µm in the LSB group (p < 0.001). The direct data capture groups are closer to the ideal proximal and occlusal contacts for single implant crowns than the indirect data capture groups. There was no difference in the accuracy between the two types of scan body (SSB and LSB).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document