The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model Variations
<b>Background:</b> Advances in digital technology and intraoral scanners (IOSs) have the potential to enable accurate digital impressions for patients with maxillary defects. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of IOSs in completely and partially edentulous models with maxillary def...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-10-01
|
| Series: | Diagnostics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/21/2368 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846173455061352448 |
|---|---|
| author | Sema Murat Burcu Batak Özge Aydoğ Caner Öztürk |
| author_facet | Sema Murat Burcu Batak Özge Aydoğ Caner Öztürk |
| author_sort | Sema Murat |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background:</b> Advances in digital technology and intraoral scanners (IOSs) have the potential to enable accurate digital impressions for patients with maxillary defects. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of IOSs in completely and partially edentulous models with maxillary defects. <b>Methods:</b> Three polyurethane models—one completely edentulous (CE) and two partially edentulous, following Aramany classifications I (ACI) and II (ACII)—were created using stereolithography. These models were scanned with a desktop scanner to create reference models. Ten scans were performed using three different intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo). The IOS datasets were analyzed to assess trueness and precision using a two-way ANOVA and multiple-comparison tests with Bonferroni corrections (α = 0.05). <b>Results:</b> Both the model type and the IOS significantly influenced trueness and precision. The interaction between the model type and the IOS was found to be statistically significant (trueness: <i>p</i> = 0.001; precision: <i>p</i> = 0.005). The highest trueness was observed in the ACII model scanned with TRIOS 3 and Primescan. TRIOS 3 and Primescan also exhibited the highest precision in the ACII model. For Virtuo Vivo, there were no significant differences among the models (<i>p</i> = 0.48). <b>Conclusions:</b> Although intraoral scanners (IOSs) demonstrated significant differences in trueness when used in completely and partially edentulous models with maxillary defects, these differences may be considered clinically insignificant. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6c2fa749e2c04063a9a3c4fc4be3f8b3 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2075-4418 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-10-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Diagnostics |
| spelling | doaj-art-6c2fa749e2c04063a9a3c4fc4be3f8b32024-11-08T14:34:42ZengMDPI AGDiagnostics2075-44182024-10-011421236810.3390/diagnostics14212368The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model VariationsSema Murat0Burcu Batak1Özge Aydoğ2Caner Öztürk3Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara 06560, TurkeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara University, Ankara 06560, TurkeyDentoper Fethiye-Private Clinic, Muğla 48300, TurkeyDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Medipol University, Ankara 06570, Turkey<b>Background:</b> Advances in digital technology and intraoral scanners (IOSs) have the potential to enable accurate digital impressions for patients with maxillary defects. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of IOSs in completely and partially edentulous models with maxillary defects. <b>Methods:</b> Three polyurethane models—one completely edentulous (CE) and two partially edentulous, following Aramany classifications I (ACI) and II (ACII)—were created using stereolithography. These models were scanned with a desktop scanner to create reference models. Ten scans were performed using three different intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo). The IOS datasets were analyzed to assess trueness and precision using a two-way ANOVA and multiple-comparison tests with Bonferroni corrections (α = 0.05). <b>Results:</b> Both the model type and the IOS significantly influenced trueness and precision. The interaction between the model type and the IOS was found to be statistically significant (trueness: <i>p</i> = 0.001; precision: <i>p</i> = 0.005). The highest trueness was observed in the ACII model scanned with TRIOS 3 and Primescan. TRIOS 3 and Primescan also exhibited the highest precision in the ACII model. For Virtuo Vivo, there were no significant differences among the models (<i>p</i> = 0.48). <b>Conclusions:</b> Although intraoral scanners (IOSs) demonstrated significant differences in trueness when used in completely and partially edentulous models with maxillary defects, these differences may be considered clinically insignificant.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/21/2368maxillary defectintraoral scannertruenessprecision |
| spellingShingle | Sema Murat Burcu Batak Özge Aydoğ Caner Öztürk The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model Variations Diagnostics maxillary defect intraoral scanner trueness precision |
| title | The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model Variations |
| title_full | The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model Variations |
| title_fullStr | The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model Variations |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model Variations |
| title_short | The Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners in Maxillary Defects with Different Model Variations |
| title_sort | accuracy of intraoral scanners in maxillary defects with different model variations |
| topic | maxillary defect intraoral scanner trueness precision |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/21/2368 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT semamurat theaccuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations AT burcubatak theaccuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations AT ozgeaydog theaccuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations AT canerozturk theaccuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations AT semamurat accuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations AT burcubatak accuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations AT ozgeaydog accuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations AT canerozturk accuracyofintraoralscannersinmaxillarydefectswithdifferentmodelvariations |