Farklı İntraoral Tarayıcıların İmplant Ölçü Hassasiyeti Üzerindeki Etkisinin Değerlendirilmesi

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 127 - 134, 26.01.2024

Gülsüm Ceylan Münir Demirel Almira Ada Diken Türksayar Faruk Emir Mustafa Borga Dönmez

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1312447

Abstract

Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı intraoral tarayıcıların dental implantlar üzerinden alınan ölçülerin hassasiyetine olan etkisini kapsamlı bir şekilde değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışma, altı intraoral tarayıcıyı (AİT); Trios 4, Trios 3, Primescan, Omnicam, Planmeca ve Medit i700 karşılaştırmak üzerine tasarlandı. 3D yazıcı (Formlabs 3) ile üretilen master modelden herbir AİT ile ölçü alındı. AİT’lerin doğruluk (trueness) ve kesinlik (precision) değerleri belirlendi ve analiz edildi. İstatistiksel analizlerde, Shapiro-Wilks testi ve Kruskal-Wallis non-parametrik testleri (α=0.05) ayrıca çoklu karşılaştırmalarda Tamhane testi kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Gruplara ait doğruluk değerleri arasında anlamlı farklar bulundu (p<0.05). Trios 4 ile Omnicam doğruluk değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmazken (p>0.05) diğer AİT’ler ile arasında anlamlı fark bulundu (p<0.05). Trios 3 ile Planmeca arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı (p>0.05). Ancak, Primescan ve Medit i700'ün doğruluk değerleri ile diğer AİT'ler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulundu (p<0.05). Gruplara ait kesinlik değerleri arasında anlamlı farklar saptandı (p<0.05). Medit i700 ve Omnicam, Trios 3 ve Trios 4 arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunurken (p<0.05), Planmeca ile diğer AİT’ler arasında anlamlı fark bulunmadı (p>0.05).
Sonuç: En yüksek doğruluk değeri Primescan'de, en yüksek kesinlik değeri ise Medit i700'de bulundu. Bu sonuçlar, AİT’lerin seçiminde hekimler tarafından dikkate alınmalıdır.

Keywords

Ağız içi tarayıcı, Dijital ölçü, Diş implantı, Tek diş, 3D analiz

Assessing the Impact of Various Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Dental Implant Impression

Abstract

Aim: This in vitro study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effect of intraoral scanners on the precision of impressions taken on dental implants.
Materials and Methods: This study compared six intraoral scanners (IOSs): Trios 4, Trios 3, Primescan, Omnicam, Planmeca and Medit i700. Impressions were taken with each IOS from the master model produced with a 3D printer (Formlabs 3). The trueness and precision values of IOSs were determined and analyzed. Shapiro-Wilks test and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric tests (α=0.05) were used for statistical analyses, and the Tamhane test was used for multiple comparisons.
Results: Significant differences were found between the trueness values of the groups (p<0.05). While there was no statistically significant difference between Trios 4 and Omnicam trueness values (p>0.05), a significant difference was found between other IOSs (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between Trios 3 and Planmeca (p>0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found between the trueness values of Primescan and Medit i700 and other IOSs (p<0.05). Significant differences were found between the precision values of the groups (p<0.05). While there was a statistically significant difference between Medit i700 and Omnicam, Trios 3 and Trios 4 (p<0.05), there was no significant difference between Planmeca and other IOSs (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The highest trueness value was found in Primescan, and the highest precision value was found in Medit i700. These results should be taken into account by clinicians in the selection of IOSs.

Keywords

Digital impression, Dental implant, Intraoral scanner, Single tooth, 3D analysis

References

• Referans1. Marti AM, Harris BT, Metz MJ, Morton D, Scarfe WC, Metz CJ, et al. Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology. Eur J Dent Educ 2017;21:200- 5.
• Referans2. Lin WS, Metz MJ, Pollini A, Ntounis A, Morton D. Digital data acquisition for a CAD/CAM-fabricated titanium framework and zirconium oxide restorations for an implant-supported fixed complete dental prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1324-9.
• Referans3. Şen N. Farklı dijital ölçü sistemlerinin dental implantın ölçü netliğine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 2020;41:77-82.
• Referans4. 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- 70.
• Referans5. González de Villaumbrosia P, 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- 50.
• Referans6. Shimizu S, Shinya A, Kuroda S, Gomi H. The accuracy of the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for designing of fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater J 2017;36:402-7.
• Referans7. Giuliodori G, Rappelli G, Aquilanti L. Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20:4776.
• Referans8. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:1-13.
• Referans9. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:853-62.
• Referans10. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of Accuracy of Current Ten Intraoral Scanners. Biomed Res Int 2021;2021:2673040.
• Referans11. 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;35:115-21.
• Referans12. ISO. 5725-1:1994 Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurements Methods and Results–Part 1: General Principles and Definitions; International Standards Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1994.
• Referans13. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dentalimpressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8.
• Referans14. Chiu A, Chen Y-W, Hayashi J, Sadr A. Accuracy of CAD/CAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters. Sensors 2020;20:1157.
• Referans15. Denissen H, Dozić A, van der Zel J, van Waas M. Marginal fit and short-term clinical performance of porcelain-veneered CICERO, CEREC, and Procera onlays. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:506-13.
• Referans16. Martins LM, Lorenzoni FC, Melo AO, Silva LM, Oliveira JL, Oliveira PC, et al. Internal fit of two all-ceramic systems and metal-ceramic crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2012;20:235-40.
• Referans17. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11.
• Referans18. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:184-90.
• Referans19. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:799-806.
• Referans20. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41.
• Referans21. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps A I. Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:811-20.
• Referans22. Mühlemann S, Greter EA, Park JM, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A withinsubject comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:931-6.
• Referans23. Gurpinar B, Tak O. Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127:430-7.
• Referans24. Diker B, Tak Ö. Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:187-94.
• Referans25. Marques VR, Çakmak G, Yilmaz H, Abou-Ayash S, Donmez MB, Yilmaz B. Effect of Scanned Area and Operator on the Accuracy of Dentate Arch Scans with a Single Implant. J Clin Med 2022;11:4125.
• Referans26. Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:374-92.
• Referans27. Pesce P, Bagnasco F, Pancini N, Colombo M, Canullo L, Pera F, et al. Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Analysis on the Effect of Operators’ Experience and Implant Number. J Clin Med 2021;10:5917.
• Referans28. Güth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1487-94.
• Referans29. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:96-104.
• Referans30. Hamm J, Berndt EU, Beuer F, Zachriat C. Evaluation of model materials for CAD/CAM in vitro studies. Int J Comput Dent 2020;23:49-56.