پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,149 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,519 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 45,426,202 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,296,820 |
In Vitro Comparison of the Accuracy (Precision and Trueness) of Seven Dental Scanners | ||
| Journal of Dentistry | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 22، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 70، خرداد 2021، صفحه 8-13 اصل مقاله (574.03 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/dentjods.2020.83485.1047 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Fariborz Vafaee1؛ Farnaz Firouz2؛ Mahsa Mohajeri* 3؛ Reza Hashemi4؛ Somayeh Ghorbani Gholiabad5 | ||
| 1Dental Implant Research Center, Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dental Faculty, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran. | ||
| 2Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dental Faculty, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran. | ||
| 3Post Graduate Student, Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dental Faculty, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran. | ||
| 4Dept. of Prosthodontics, Dental Faculty, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran. | ||
| 5Dept. of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Statement of the Problem: The mechanism of operation of dental scanners are based on different technologies. Considering these differences, there are many types of scanners available in the market. Purpose: This in-vitro study aimed to compare the accuracy (precision and trueness) of seven commonly used dental scanners. Materials and Method: In this in-vitro, experimental study, accuracy of 7 common extra oral scanners (Sirona ineos inLab, Sirona X5, Dentium, Imes Icore 350I, amann girrbach, 3shape D700, 3shape E3) were evaluated. Each of scanners performed 7 scans of implant abutment of SIC (SIC MAX.GH1). Data from each scanner were then compared to data received from 3Shape Trios intra oral scanner, as a reference. For evaluating the accuracy of each scanner, trueness and precision was evaluated. Collected data were analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Bonferroni tests via SPSS version 22. Results: Descriptive statistics showed the best trueness was for 3Shape E3 scanner with the average of 35.37 µm and the worst referred to Sirona x5 scanner with the average of 51.75 µm. Furthermore, the best precision refers to 3Shape E3 scanner with the average of 35.34, while the lowest precision was noted in 3Shape D700. The scanners had significant differences with each other in terms of trueness and precision (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In this study the extra oral scanner, 3shape E3, had the best trueness and precision. The lowest amount of trueness among the studied scanners was for the extra oral scanner, Sirona x5, and the lowest precision was for scanner 3shape D700. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Dental Scanners؛ Precision؛ Trueness | ||
|
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
|
||
| مراجع | ||
|
[1] De*Villaumbrosia PG, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 543-550.
[2] Goodacre CJ, Garbacea A, Naylor WP, Daher T, March-ack CB, Lowry J. CAD/CAM fabricated complete dentures: concepts and clinical methods of obtaining required morphological data. J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 107: 34-46.
[3] Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 253-259.
[4] Freedman M, Quinn F, O'Sullivan M. Single unit CAD/ CAM restorations: a literature review. J Ir Dent Assoc. 2007; 53: 38-45.
[5] Tamim H, Skjerven H, Ekfeldt A, Rønold HJ. Clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM metal-ceramic posterior crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions. Int J Prosthodont. 2014; 27: 331-337.
[6] Ender A, Mehl AJQI. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 9-17.
[7] Nedelcu RG, Persson ASJTJopd. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1461-1471.
[8] Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95: 194-200.
[9] Chan D, Chung AH, Haines J, Yau ET, Kuo C. The accuracy of optical scanning: influence of convergence and die preparation. Oper Dent. 2011; 36: 486-491.
[10] Rudolph H, Luthardt RG, Walter MH. Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med. 2007; 37: 579-587.
[11] Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42.
[12] Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128.
[13] De*França DGB, Morais MHS, das*Neves FD, Barbosa GA. Influence of CAD/CAM on the fit accuracy of implant-supported zirconia and cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 22-28.
[14] Hack GD, Patzelt S. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in vitro investigation. ADA Prof Prod Rev. 2015; 10: 1–5.
[15] Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 755-759.
[16] Mandelli F, Gherlone E, Gastaldi G, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the accuracy of extraoral laboratory scanners with a single-tooth abutment model: A 3D analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 363-370.
[17] Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 648-653.
[18] Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018; 69: 110-118.
[19] Persson M, Andersson M, Bergman B. The accuracy of a high-precision digitizer for CAD/CAM of crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 74: 223-229.
[20] Emir F, Ayyıldız S. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 434-439.
[21] Del Corso M, Aba G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Ehrenfest DMD. Optical three‐dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 11: 214-221.
[22] DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko C, Douglas WH. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res. 2003; 82: 438-442.
[23] Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 310-315.
[24] Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Vanhove C, Dierens M, Jimbo R, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of optical dental digitizers: an in vitro study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2015; 35: 115-121.
[25] Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1201-1208. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4,079 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 2,847 |
||
