Kısmi Ark Dijital İmplant Ölçülerinde 2 Farklı Ağız İçi Tarayıcının Doğruluğu: Karşılaştırmalı Bir İn Vitro Çalışma

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 137 - 141, 19.08.2024

Taygun Sezer

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1337627

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2 farklı ağız içi tarayıcı ile elde edilen kısmi ark dijital implant ölçülerinin doğruluğunu değerlendirmekti.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Cerec Omnicam ve Trios 3 ağız içi tarayıcıların doğruluğu gerçeklik sapması ve hassasiyet sapması ile değerlendirildi. İki implant analoğu bulunan bir alçı model ağız içi tarayıcılar ile taranarak test taramaları elde edildi (n=10). Aynı model bir masaüstü tarayıcı ile taranarak referans tarama verisi elde edildi. Test taramalarındaki tarama gövdeleri ile referans tarama gövdeleri bir tersine mühendislik yazılımında çakıştırıldı ve üç boyutlu sapmalar hesaplanarak gerçeklik sapması hesaplandı. Test taramalarının birbiri ile çakıştırılması ile elde edilen sapmalar ise hassasiyet sapması olarak kaydedildi. Verilerin normalliği Shapiro-Wilk testi kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Tarayıcılar arasındaki istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklar Bağımsız örnekler t testi ile incelendi.
Bulgular: Cerec Omnicam, Trios 3’ e göre istatistiksel olarak daha düşük gerçeklik ve hassasiyet sapması gösterdi (p<0,001). Cerec Omnicam ile gerçekleştirilen taramaların ortalama gerçeklik sapması 15,75 ± 2,93 m iken Trios 3 ile gerçekleştirilen taramaların ortalama gerçeklik sapması 25,78 ± 2,22 m olarak elde edildi. Cerec Omnicam ile gerçekleştirilen taramaların ortalama hassasiyet sapması 5,05 ± 1,61 m iken Trios 3 ile gerçekleştirilen taramaların ortalama hassasiyet sapması 7,73 ± 1,94 m olarak elde edildi.
Sonuç: Kısmi ark dijital implant ölçülerinin doğruluğu tarayıcı tipine göre değişiklik gösterdi. Bununla birlikte her iki tarayıcının gerçeklik ve hassasiyet sapması, klinik olarak kabul edilebilir sınırın altında bulundu.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ağız içi tarayıcı, dijital implant ölçüsü, tarayıcı doğruluğu

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ağız içi tarayıcı, dijital implant ölçüsü, tarayıcı doğruluğu

Accuracy of 2 Different Intraoral Scanners for Partial Arch Digital Implant Impressions: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Öz

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of partial arch digital implant impressions obtained with 2 different intraoral scanners.
Methods: The accuracy of Cerec Omnicam and Trios 3 intraoral scanners was evaluated based on trueness and precision deviations. A plaster model with 2 implant analogs was scanned using intraoral scanners to obtain test scans (n=10). A reference scan was obtained by scanning the same model with a desktop scanner. The scan bodies of the test scans were superimposed with the reference scan bodies using reverse engineering software, and three-dimensional deviations were calculated to determine the trueness. The deviations obtained from the superimposition of test scans with each other were recorded as precision deviations. The normality of the data was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Statistically significant differences between the scanners were analyzed using the Independent samples t-test.
Results: Cerec Omnicam showed statistically significantly lower trueness and precision deviations compared to Trios 3 (p<0.001). The mean trueness deviation of Cerec Omnicam was 15.75 ± 2.93 µm, whereas the mean trueness deviation of Trios 3 was 25.78 ± 2.22 µm. The mean precision deviation of Cerec Omnicam was 5.05 ± 1.61 µm, while the mean precision deviation of Trios 3 was 7.73 ± 1.94 µm.
Conclusion: The accuracy of partial-arch digital implant impressions varied depending on the scanner type. However, both scanners exhibited trueness and precision deviations that were below the clinically acceptable threshold.
Keywords: Intraoral scanner, digital implant impression, scanner accuracy

Anahtar Kelimeler

Intraoral scanner, digital implant impression, scanner accuracy

Kaynakça

• 1. 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;29:374-392.
• 2. Schmidt A, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022;33(6):573-585.
• 3. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109(2):121-128
• 4. Zhang YJ, Shi JY, Qian SJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review. Int J Oral Implantol 2021;14:157–179.
• 5. Sallorenzo A, Gómez-Polo M. Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(5):1009-1016.,
• 6. Alpkılıç DŞ, Değer Sİ. In Vitro Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional Impression and Four Intraoral Scanners in Four Different Implant Impression Scenarios. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:39–48.
• 7. Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(5):1017-1023.
• 8. Yilmaz B, Rizzo Marques V, Guo X, Gouveia D, Abou-Ayash S. The effect of scanned area on the accuracy and time of anterior single implant scans: An in vitro study. J Dent 2021;109:103620.
• 9. Resende, C. C. D., Barbosa, T. A. Q., Moura, G. F., do Nascimento Tavares, L., Rizzante, F. A. P., George, F. M. et al. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(2):294-299.
• 10. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):1-14.
• 11. 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):1-13.
• 12. Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont 2020;29(4):309-314.
• 13. Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):1-21.
• 14. Denneulin T, Rignon-Bret C, Ravalec G, Tapie L, Bouter D, Wulfman C. Accuracy of Complete-Arch Implant Digital Scans: Effect of Scanning Protocol, Number of Implants, and Scan Body Splinting. Int J Prosthodont 2023;36:219–227.
• 15. Revell G, Simon B, Mennito A, Evans ZP, Renne W, Ludlow M, et al. Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:632–638.
• 16. Kachhara S, Nallaswamy D, Ganapathy DM, Sivaswamy V, Rajaraman V. Assessment of intraoral scanning technology for multiple implant impressions – A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20(2):141.
• 17. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of Intra-Oral Dental Scanners in the Digital Workflow of Implantology. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43312.
• 18. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsk E, Mangano C. Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. PLoS One 2016;11(9):e0163107.
• 19. Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29(3):277-283.
• 20. Chew AA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, Wong KM, Ng SD, Tan KB. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:70-80.
• 21. Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, Rafie K El, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(4):574-579.
• 22. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez‐Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e54-e64.
• 23. Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Özcan M. Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020; 28(4):173-181.
• 24. Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:102-109.
• 25. Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Rutkunas V. Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: A comparative clinical study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:271-279.
• 26. Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques. J Prosthodont 2019;28(4):e902-e908.
• 27. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, Van Der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111(3):186-194.
• 28. Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:755–760.
• 29. Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions. J Prosthodont 2021;30(2):163-170.