In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridBilmenoglu, Caglar/0000-0002-2580-9899
dc.authoridGECKILI, ONUR/0000-0002-7852-3915
dc.authoridBilhan, Hakan/0000-0003-1787-3003
dc.authorwosidBilmenoglu, Caglar/HGE-5706-2022
dc.authorwosidGECKILI, ONUR/AAD-4973-2020
dc.contributor.authorBilmenoglu, Caglar
dc.contributor.authorCilingir, Altug
dc.contributor.authorGeckili, Onur
dc.contributor.authorBilhan, Hakan
dc.contributor.authorBilgin, Tayfun
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-12T11:17:29Z
dc.date.available2024-06-12T11:17:29Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentTrakya Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractStatement of problem. Digital scanning systems have become popular, but whether these systems are adequate for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses is unclear. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of 10 different dental intraoral scanners. Material and methods. Six implant analogs were installed, and an edentulous mandibular model composed of scannable Type 4 gypsum was scanned with 10 different intraoral scanners (3D Progress, Omnicam, Bluecam, Apollo DI, Planscan, E4D Tech, TRIOS MonoColor Cart, TRIOS Color Cart, TRIOS Color Pod, Lythos), 10 times each after the scan body was placed on the implant abutments. The data obtained were then converted into standard tessellation language format. For the control group, the gypsum model was scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80). For trueness, the dental and industrial scanning data packs were analyzed with 3D comparison software. Statistical analyses were performed by using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results. When ranked according to their surface superimposition values, the Color POD, Omnicam, Apollo DI, Color Cart, MonoColor Cart, and Bluecam scanners were found within the range of 31 to 45 mm. This group was followed by E4D, 3D Progress, Lythos, and Planscan, which were found within the range of 82 to 344 mm according to the same criteria. Conclusions. Some of the digital scanners had the necessary performance for the fabrication of complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. However, the possibility of data loss producing artifacts should be considered.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipResearch Fund of Istanbul University [41219]en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSupported by the Research Fund of Istanbul University. Project No. 41219.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.017
dc.identifier.endpage760en_US
dc.identifier.issn0022-3913
dc.identifier.issn1097-6841
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid31987587en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85078272738en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1en_US
dc.identifier.startpage755en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.017
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14551/24728
dc.identifier.volume124en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000597220100024en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherMosby-Elsevieren_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal Of Prosthetic Dentistryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAccuracyen_US
dc.subjectPrecisionen_US
dc.titleIn vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prosthesesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu

Kişisel bilgilerinizi şu amaçlarla toplar ve işleriz: Kimlik Doğrulama, Tercihler, Onay ve İstatistikler.
Daha fazla bilgi edinmek için lütfen gizlilik politikası sayfamızı okuyun.

Özelleştirme