Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners

Author:

Khoshkhahesh Maryam1,Enteghad Shabnam2,Aghasadeghi Kiana3,Farzin Mitra1,Taghva Masumeh1ORCID,Mosadad Seyed Ali45ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran

2. Department of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry University of British Columbia Vancouver British Columbia Canada

3. Student Research Committee Islamic Azad University of Shiraz Shiraz Iran

4. Department of Research Analytics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences Saveetha University Chennai India

5. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prostheses, Faculty of Odontology University Complutense of Madrid Madrid Spain

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions.Material and MethodsA customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni‐Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.ResultsTrios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (p value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (p value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.ConclusionFor Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.

Funder

Shiraz University of Medical Sciences

Publisher

Wiley

Reference35 articles.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3