| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Yilmaz, Hakan
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
The effect of scanner type and scan body position on the accuracy of complete‐arch digital implant scans
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>How the accuracy of complete‐arch implant scans is affected when different intraoral scanners (IOSs) are used and the effect of scan body position on the accuracy are not well‐known.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>To compare the scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of a recently introduced IOS (Virtuo Vivo) to a commonly used IOS (TRIOS 3) and the scans of a laboratory scanner (LBS; Cares 7 SERIES) in a completely edentulous maxilla with four implants. It was also aimed to evaluate the effect of scan body position on the accuracy.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Multi‐unit scan bodies were tightened on a poly(methyl methacrylate) edentulous maxillary model with four implants. A master reference model (MRM) stereolithography (STL) file was generated by scanning the model with a high‐precision scanner. The model was scanned with three different scanners (n = 10); two different IOSs and a LBS. STL files were superimposed over the MRM.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>For trueness, scan body position (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .004) and scanner type (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> < .001) had a significant effect on distance deviation and a significant interaction was found (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .001). For angular deviation, only scanner type had a significant effect (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .028). For precision, significant difference was found for distance (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .011) and angular deviations (<jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .020) between different scanner types.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>One scanner type was not superior to others when both trueness and precision were considered. Position of the scan body affected the distance deviation (trueness).</jats:p></jats:sec>