Background: Until now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to\ncapture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the\ntrueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully\nedentulous model (FEM) with six implants.\nMethods: Two gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyetherether-\nketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider�®), and with\nfour IOS (CS3600�®, Trios3�®, Omnicam�®, TrueDefinition�®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All\nIOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference\nmodel, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed\nstatistical analysis was carried out.\nResults: In the PEM, CS3600�® had the best trueness (45.8 �± 1.6�¼m), followed by Trios3�® (50.2 �± 2.5�¼m), Omnicam�®\n(58.8 �± 1.6�¼m) and TrueDefinition�® (61.4 �± 3.0�¼m). Significant differences were found between CS3600�® and Trios3�®,\nCS3600�® and Omnicam�®, CS3600�® and TrueDefinition�®, Trios3�® and Omnicam�®, Trios3�® and TrueDefinition�®. In the\nFEM, CS3600�® had the best trueness (60.6 �± 11.7�¼m), followed by Omnicam�® (66.4 �± 3.9�¼m), Trios3�® (67.2 �± 6.9�¼m)\nand TrueDefinition�® (106.4 �± 23.1�¼m). Significant differences were found between CS3600�® and TrueDefinition�®,\nTrios3�® and TrueDefinition�®, Omnicam�® and TrueDefinition�®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in\nthe PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition�® had the best\nprecision (19.5 �± 3.1�¼m), followed by Trios3�® (24.5 �± 3.7�¼m), CS3600�® (24.8 �± 4.6�¼m) and Omnicam�® (26.3 �± 1.5�¼m);\nno statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3�® had the best precision\n(31.5 �± 9.8�¼m), followed by Omnicam�® (57.2 �± 9.1�¼m), CS3600�® (65.5 �± 16.7�¼m) and TrueDefinition�® (75.3 �± 43.8�¼m);\nno statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600�®, For CS3600�®, Omnicam�® and\nTrueDefinition�®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no\nsignificant differences were found for Trios3�®.\nConclusions: Significant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness\nwas higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600�®,\nOmnicam�® and TrueDefinition�®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have\nimportant clinical implications.
Loading....