Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
QI Pre-Print
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
June 2021
Volume 52 , Issue 6

Back
Share Abstract:

Evaluation of the accuracy of multiple digital impression systems on a fully edentulous maxilla

Zvi Gutmacher, DMD/Abigail Kelly, MS/Walter Renne, DMD/Madison Hoover, BSc/Anthony Mennito, DMD/Sorin Teich, DMD, MBA/Monica Cayouette, DMD/Mark Ludlow, DMD

Pages: 488–495
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.b1244373

Objective: This study aimed to compare the accuracy performance of five different intraoral scanning systems for a full-arch scan on an edentulous cadaver maxilla. Method and materials: Five digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a fully edentulous cadaver maxilla. A master scan obtained with an ATOS Capsule industrial grade scanner provided the point of comparison. Experimental scans were compared to the master scan using a metrology software that allows images to be overlayed on one another and deviations interpreted. Once aligned, three comparisons were made between the experimental scans and the reference: the entire maxilla, the ridge area only, and the palate area only. Results: Trueness deviations between the experimental scans and the master digital model were up to 0.1 mm in the 75th percentile. For the whole maxilla, only the Medit scanner had statistically significantly inferior trueness compared to other scanners. When only the palate was considered, Medit was significantly different from Element (P = .0025) and Trios 4 (P = .0040), with no differences found between other scanners. For the ridge region the results replicate the trend observed for the whole maxilla. In regard to precision, differences were found only in the whole maxilla and the ridge area. In both areas, only Medit’s precision was significantly different compared to other scanners, with the exception of Element. However, Element performance was similar to all other scanners. Conclusion: Most intraoral scanners exhibited similar performance. Although several statistically significant differences were identified, the clinical impact of these variances is probably not meaningful.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2022 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog