Dataset Information

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study was aimed at comparing the accuracy of impressions of a reference typodont (RT) reproducing a totally edentulous maxilla made with three impression materials: polysulfide, polyether, and polyvinyl-siloxane. METHODS:The RT was scanned using a desktop scanner, obtaining a reference scan. Ten impressions for each of the three tested materials were made using a mechanical device with a standardized and consistent modality. A laboratory scanner performed the digitization of each impression. We produced digital models by processing "in reverse" the scans of the physical impressions using a dedicated software, obtaining three groups (n = 10), respectively. The groups were titled: "polysulfide," "polyvinyl-siloxane," and "polyether." The scans in .stl format were imported into Geomagic Control X and then compared to RT to evaluate the accuracy of each scan by calculating trueness and precision in µm. Recorded data were subjected to descriptive statistics. RESULTS:Trueness (arithmetic proximity) values (95%CI) were: polysulfide = 249.9 (121.3-378.5), polyvinyl-siloxane = 216.8 (123.1-310.6), polyether = 291.1 (219.9-362.3). Precision values (95% CI) were: polysulfide = 261.9 (108.8-415), polyvinyl-siloxane = 209.4 (111.9-306.8), polyether = 283 (227.9-338.1). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the means of the experimental groups, both for trueness and precision. CONCLUSIONS:The accuracy of the scans obtained from polyvinyl-siloxane, polysulfide, and polyether impressions can be considered comparable in a fully edentulous maxilla.

SUBMITTER: Zarone F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7040790 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis.

Zarone Fernando F Ruggiero Gennaro G Di Mauro Maria Irene MI Spagnuolo Gianrico G Ferrari Marco M Sorrentino Roberto R

Materials (Basel, Switzerland) 20200122 3

<h4>Background</h4>This study was aimed at comparing the accuracy of impressions of a reference typodont (RT) reproducing a totally edentulous maxilla made with three impression materials: polysulfide, polyether, and polyvinyl-siloxane.<h4>Methods</h4>The RT was scanned using a desktop scanner, obtaining a reference scan. Ten impressions for each of the three tested materials were made using a mechanical device with a standardized and consistent modality. A laboratory scanner performed the digit ...[more]

PMID: 31978974

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThis in vivo study aims to assess the accuracy of the digital intraoral implant impression technique, the conventional closed-tray impression technique, and open-tray impression techniques in a standardized method of data segmentation along with the best-fit algorithm to overcome the inconsistency of results of previous studies regarding implant impression techniques.Materials and methodsSixteen implants were placed in eight patients. Each patient has undergone four impression techniques: direct intraoral scanning of the stock abutment, intraoral scanning using a scan body, conventional closed tray impression technique, and the conventional open tray impression technique. The conventional impressions were poured into stone casts with analogues and stock abutments and scanned using a desktop scanner. In intraoral scanning of the scan body, computer-aided design software was used for the replacement of the scan body with a custom-made abutment that is identical to the stock abutment, allowing comparison with the other impression techniques. The deviation in implant position between the groups was measured using special 3D inspection and metrology software. Statistical comparisons were carried out between the studied groups using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.ResultsThe total deviation between groups was compared to the reference group represented by the intraoral scanning of the abutment. The total deviation was statistically significantly different (P = 0.000) among the different studied groups. The mean deviation was recorded as 21.45 ± 3.3 μm, 40.04 ± 4.1 μm, and 47.79 ± 4.6 μm for the intraoral scanning of the scan body, the conventional closed, and open tray, respectively.ConclusionFor implant impressions in partially edentulous patients, intraoral oral scanning using a scan body significantly improves scanning and overall accuracy. Regarding conventional impressions, the closed-tray impression techniques showed more accuracy than conventional open-tray impressions.Clinical relevanceIntraoral digital implant impression using scan body offers more accuracy than conventional implant impression techniques for recording posterior implant position in free-end saddle partially edentulous patients.

Project description:BACKGROUNDS:Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems. METHODS:Digital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS:The deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53?±?2??m) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156?±?8??m) and CS 3600 (365?±?29??m), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531?±?26??m), Element 2 (246?±?11??m), Emerald (317?±?13??m), Omnicam (174?±?11??m), Planscan (903?±?49??m). CONCLUSIONS:The physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. METHODS:A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed. RESULTS:With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4??m) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4??m), i-500® (32.2??m), TRIOS 3® (36.4??m), CS 3600® (36.5??m), PRIMESCAN® (38.4??m), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8??m), RUNEYES® (44.4??m), EMERALD S® (52.9??m), EMERALD® (76.1??m), OMNICAM® (79.6??m) and DWIO® (98.4??m). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1??m), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3??m), TRIOS 3® (20.2??m), i-500® (20.8??m), CS 3700® (21.9??m), CS 3600® (24.4??m), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0??m), RUNEYES® (33.9??m), EMERALD S® (36.8??m), OMNICAM® (47.0??m), EMERALD® (51.9??m) and DWIO® (69.9??m). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis.

Publications

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets