Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2022-10, Vol.128 (4), p.632-638
Hauptverfasser: Revell, Griffin, Simon, Botond, Mennito, Anthony, Evans, Zachary P., Renne, Walter, Ludlow, Mark, Vág, János
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 638
container_issue 4
container_start_page 632
container_title The Journal of prosthetic dentistry
container_volume 128
creator Revell, Griffin
Simon, Botond
Mennito, Anthony
Evans, Zachary P.
Renne, Walter
Ludlow, Mark
Vág, János
description The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2511237028</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022391321000524</els_id><sourcerecordid>2511237028</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-3e1eb16182c8a9593ba19c607158873869c124b32a3e4eee96dead32797dde703</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEFvGyEQhVHVqHGc_gWLYy_rMuDdZW-toqStFKmX5IwwzMZYu-ACmzaH_PewsZNrpZFmQG_m6X2ErICtgUHzdb8-xJAs-rzmjMOazSU-kAWwrq0auYGPZMEY55XoQJyTi5T2jDFZt_CJnAshBW8bWJDn60c9TDq74GnoqQnjYcCMlY5mR115aJ9pMtp75x_oX5d3tKbW9T3G4k2dz1GHqIejBmMqXzRjHNN8LscJPaZEtbc0HDDqHCLFf2Vy6A1ekrNeDwk_n_qS3N9c3139rG5___h19f22MlyKXAkE3EIDkhupu7oTWw2daVgLtZStkE1ngG-2gmuBG0TsGovaloRday22TCzJl-PdAu3PhCmr0SWDQ0mHYUqK1wBctKy4LUlzlJrCN0Xs1SG6UccnBUzN6NVevaFXM3rF5hJlcXXymLYj2ve1N9ZF8O0owJL00WFUybxSsC6iycoG9z-PF0RTmv4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2511237028</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Revell, Griffin ; Simon, Botond ; Mennito, Anthony ; Evans, Zachary P. ; Renne, Walter ; Ludlow, Mark ; Vág, János</creator><creatorcontrib>Revell, Griffin ; Simon, Botond ; Mennito, Anthony ; Evans, Zachary P. ; Renne, Walter ; Ludlow, Mark ; Vág, János</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators. Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33832761</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><ispartof>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2022-10, Vol.128 (4), p.632-638</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-3e1eb16182c8a9593ba19c607158873869c124b32a3e4eee96dead32797dde703</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-3e1eb16182c8a9593ba19c607158873869c124b32a3e4eee96dead32797dde703</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6183-7598 ; 0000-0003-2391-7148</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391321000524$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33832761$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Revell, Griffin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Botond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mennito, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Zachary P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renne, Walter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludlow, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vág, János</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience</title><title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><description><![CDATA[The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators. Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.]]></description><issn>0022-3913</issn><issn>1097-6841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkEFvGyEQhVHVqHGc_gWLYy_rMuDdZW-toqStFKmX5IwwzMZYu-ACmzaH_PewsZNrpZFmQG_m6X2ErICtgUHzdb8-xJAs-rzmjMOazSU-kAWwrq0auYGPZMEY55XoQJyTi5T2jDFZt_CJnAshBW8bWJDn60c9TDq74GnoqQnjYcCMlY5mR115aJ9pMtp75x_oX5d3tKbW9T3G4k2dz1GHqIejBmMqXzRjHNN8LscJPaZEtbc0HDDqHCLFf2Vy6A1ekrNeDwk_n_qS3N9c3139rG5___h19f22MlyKXAkE3EIDkhupu7oTWw2daVgLtZStkE1ngG-2gmuBG0TsGovaloRday22TCzJl-PdAu3PhCmr0SWDQ0mHYUqK1wBctKy4LUlzlJrCN0Xs1SG6UccnBUzN6NVevaFXM3rF5hJlcXXymLYj2ve1N9ZF8O0owJL00WFUybxSsC6iycoG9z-PF0RTmv4</recordid><startdate>20221001</startdate><enddate>20221001</enddate><creator>Revell, Griffin</creator><creator>Simon, Botond</creator><creator>Mennito, Anthony</creator><creator>Evans, Zachary P.</creator><creator>Renne, Walter</creator><creator>Ludlow, Mark</creator><creator>Vág, János</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6183-7598</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2391-7148</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221001</creationdate><title>Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience</title><author>Revell, Griffin ; Simon, Botond ; Mennito, Anthony ; Evans, Zachary P. ; Renne, Walter ; Ludlow, Mark ; Vág, János</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c283t-3e1eb16182c8a9593ba19c607158873869c124b32a3e4eee96dead32797dde703</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Revell, Griffin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Botond</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mennito, Anthony</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evans, Zachary P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Renne, Walter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludlow, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vág, János</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Revell, Griffin</au><au>Simon, Botond</au><au>Mennito, Anthony</au><au>Evans, Zachary P.</au><au>Renne, Walter</au><au>Ludlow, Mark</au><au>Vág, János</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><date>2022-10-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>128</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>632</spage><epage>638</epage><pages>632-638</pages><issn>0022-3913</issn><eissn>1097-6841</eissn><abstract><![CDATA[The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators. Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.]]></abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>33832761</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6183-7598</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2391-7148</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3913
ispartof The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2022-10, Vol.128 (4), p.632-638
issn 0022-3913
1097-6841
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2511237028
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
title Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T18%3A22%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20complete-arch%20implant%20scanning%20with%205%20different%20intraoral%20scanners%20in%20terms%20of%20trueness%20and%20operator%20experience&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20prosthetic%20dentistry&rft.au=Revell,%20Griffin&rft.date=2022-10-01&rft.volume=128&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=632&rft.epage=638&rft.pages=632-638&rft.issn=0022-3913&rft.eissn=1097-6841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2511237028%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2511237028&rft_id=info:pmid/33832761&rft_els_id=S0022391321000524&rfr_iscdi=true