RESUMO
PURPOSE@#. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of five intraoral scanners (IOS) using a novel reference model for standardized performance evaluation. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#. Five IOSs (Medit i500, Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4) were used to digitize the reference model, which represented a simplified full-arch situation with four abutment teeth. Each IOS was used five times by an experienced operator, resulting in 25 STL (Standard Tessellation Language) files. STL data were imported into 3D software (Final Surface®) and examined for inter- and intra-group analyses. Deviations in the parameter matching error were calculated. ANOVA F-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied for inter-group comparisons (α = .05); and the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for intra-group comparisons (in % ± SD). @*RESULTS@#. Primescan (matching error value: 0.015), Trios 3 (0.016), and Trios 4 (0.018) revealed comparable results with significantly higher accuracy compared to Medit i500 (0.035) and Omnicam (0.028) (P < .001). For intra-group comparison, Trios 4 demonstrated the most homogenous results (CV 15.8%). @*CONCLUSION@#. The novel reference model investigated in this study can be used to assess the performance of dental scanning technologies in the daily routine setting and in research settings.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the dimensional accuracy of three impression techniques- a separating foil impression, a custom tray impression, and a stock tray impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A machined mandibular complete-arch metal model with special modifications served as a master cast. Three different impression techniques (n = 6 in each group) were performed with addition-cured silicon materials: i) putty-wash technique with a prefabricated metal tray (MET) using putty and regular body, ii) single-phase impression with custom tray (CUS) using regular body material, and iii) two-stage technique with stock metal tray (SEP) using putty with a separating foil and regular body material. All impressions were poured with epoxy resin. Six different distances (four intra-abutment and two inter-abutment distances) were gauged on the metal master model and on the casts with a microscope in combination with calibrated measuring software. The differences of the evaluated distances between the reference and the three test groups were calculated and expressed as mean (± SD). Additionally, the 95% confidence intervals were calculated and significant differences between the experimental groups were assumed when confidence intervals did not overlap. RESULTS: Dimensional changes compared to reference values varied between -74.01 and 32.57 µm (MET), -78.86 and 30.84 (CUS), and between -92.20 and 30.98 (SEP). For the intra-abutment distances, no significant differences among the experimental groups were detected. CUS showed a significantly higher dimensional accuracy for the inter-abutment distances with -0.02 and -0.08 percentage deviation compared to MET and SEP. CONCLUSION: The separation foil technique is a simple alternative to the custom tray technique for single tooth restorations, while limitations may exist for extended restorations with multiple abutment teeth.