Amaç: Dişsiz alan geometrisinin yani doğrusal ya da kavisli bir dişsiz alan varlığının, dijital ölçü doğruluğu üzerindeki etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: İki farklı alçı model oluşturulmuştur. Bu modellerden birinde (Model A) dişsiz alan düz bir geometridedir ve 47-45-43 no.lu dişler bölgesine implant yerleştirilmiştir. İkinci modelde ise dişsiz alan kavisli bir geometriye sahiptir ve implantlar 43-31-33 no.lu dişler bölgesine yerleştirilmiştir. Dijital ölçü gruplarında; CS3600, Itero Element 2, Primescan ve Trios 4 olmak üzere 4 farklı tarayıcı kullanılmıştır. Her bir tarayıcı ile 10 defa tarama yapılmış, taramaların hepsi tecrübeli bir kullanıcı tarafından yapılmıştır. Referans modeller endüstriyel bir tarayıcı ile dijitalize edilmiştir ve elde edilen referans dijital veri ile tarayıcılardan elde edilen veriler özel bir bilgisayar yazılımı (Geomagic Control X) kullanılarak çakıştırılmıştır. Üç boyutlu sapma miktarını belirlemede ortalama sapmanın karesinin karekökü sonucu kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel analizlerde bağımsız gruplar t-testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi kullanılmıştır. İstatistiksel anlamlılık p<0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bulgular: Hiçbir tarayıcı grubunda Model A ile Model B arasında anlamlı farklılık saptanmamıştır (p>0,05). Her iki modelde tarayıcılar arasında sapma değerleri bakımından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark olduğu saptanmıştır (p<0,001). Itero tarayıcısına ilişkin sapma değerlerinin CS3600, Primescan ve Trios 4 tarayıcılarından büyük olduğu; Primescan tarayıcısına ilişkin sapma değerlerinin CS3600 ve Trios 4 tarayıcılarından büyük olduğu tespit edilmiştir (p<0,05). Sonuç: Kullanılan tarayıcılarla alınan dijital ölçülerde, dişsiz alan geometrisi ve kavis varlığının ölçü doğruluğuna herhangi bir etkisinin olmadığı saptanmıştır. Trios 4 tüm tarayıcılardan daha düşük sapma değeri gösterirken, Itero cihazı her iki modelde de tüm tarayıcılardan daha yüksek sapma değerleri göstermiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Dental implant; dental ölçü; ağız içi tarayıcı; dijital dental ölçü
Objective: To evaluate the effect of edentulous area geometry, namely the presence of a linear or curved edentulous area, on digital measurement accuracy. Material and Methods: Two different plaster models were created. In one of these models (Model A), the edentulous area is in a flat geometry and the implant is placed in the teeth area 47-45-43. In the second model, the edentulous area has a curved geometry and the implants are placed in the teeth area 43-31-33. In digital measure groups; 4 different scanners were used, namely CS3600, Itero Element 2, Primescan and Trios 4. 10 scans were made with each scanner, all scans were made by an experienced user. The reference models were digitized with an industrial scanner and the obtained reference digital data and the data obtained from the scanners were matched using a special computer software (Geomagic Control X). The root mean square of the mean deviation was used to determine the amount of 3-dimensional deviation. Independent groups test and one-way analysis of variance were used for statistical analysis. Statistical significance was accepted as p<0.05. Results: No significant difference was found between Model A and Model B in any of the scanner groups (p>0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in deviation values between the scanners in both models (p<0.001). The deviation values for the Itero scanner are greater than the CS3600, Primescan and Trios 4 scanners; it was determined that the deviation values of the Primescan scanner were greater than the CS3600 and Trios 4 scanners (p<0.05). Conclusion: Digital impressions that are taken with the scanners used showed that the edentulous area geometry and the presence of curvature do not have any effect on the measurement accuracy. Trios 4 showed lower deviation than all scanners, while Itero device showed higher deviation values than all scanners in both models.
Keywords: Dental implant; dental impression; intraoral scanner; digital dental impression
- Al Quran FA, Rashdan BA, Zomar AA, Weiner S. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques. Quintessence Int. 2012;43(2):119-25. [PubMed]
- Dahl BE, Rønold HJ, Dahl JE. Internal fit of single crowns produced by CAD-CAM and lost-wax metal casting technique assessed by the triple-scan protocol. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):400-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Stappert CF, Dai M, Chitmongkolsuk S, Gerds T, Strub JR. Marginal adaptation of three-unit fixed partial dentures constructed from pressed ceramic systems. Br Dent J. 2004;196(12):766-70; discussion 760, quiz 780. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):109-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(2):184-90.e12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29 Suppl 16:374-392. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008;204(9):505-11. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Zhuming B, Xiaoqin W. Computer Aided Design and Manufacturing. 1st ed. New York: Acme Press; 2020.
- Silva NR, Witek L, Coelho PG, Thompson VP, Rekow ED, Smay J. Additive CAD/CAM process for dental prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(2):93-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics-Part I : 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt. Laser Eng. 2014;54:203-21. [Crossref]
- Moreira AH, Rodrigues NF, Pinho AC, Fonseca JC, Vilaça JL. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17 Suppl 2:e751-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-29. English, German. [PubMed]
- Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(4):465-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):574-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Baig MR. Multi-implant impressions. To splint or not to splint: a critical review. Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32(1):66-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):277-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43312. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12 Suppl 1:e63-76. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17 Suppl 1:e54-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(1):11-21. English, German. [PubMed]
- Holst S, Karl M, Wichmann M, Matta RE. A new triple-scan protocol for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations. Quintessence Int. 2011;42(8):651-7. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Budak I, Vukelić D, Bračun D, Hodolič J, Soković M. Pre-processing of point-data from contact and optical 3D digitization sensors. Sensors (Basel). 2012;12(1):1100-26. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Chen J, Zhang Z, Chen X, Zhang C, Zhang G, Xu Z. Design and manufacture of customized dental implants by using reverse engineering and selective laser melting technology. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(5):1088-95.e1. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(4):343-9. [PubMed]
- Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163107. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;97(6):349-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Schmidt A, Billig JW, Schlenz MA, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Influence of the accuracy of intraoral scanbodies on implant position: differences in manufacturing tolerances. Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32(5):430-2. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kamimura E, Tanaka S, Takaba M, Tachi K, Baba K. In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179188. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):85-95. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Lauer AW, Patel RB, Ludlow ME, Renne WG. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018;30(2):113-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Revised American Dental Association Specification no. 19 for Non-aqueous, Elastomeric Dental Impression Materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1977;94(4):733-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Revell G, Simon B, Mennito A, Evans ZP, Renne W, Ludlow M, et al. Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;S0022-3913(21)00052-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):263. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
.: Process List