Prim Dent J. 2019 Nov 1;8(3):34-39. doi: 10.1308/205016819827601491.
Abstract
AIM:
The
purpose of the present study was to assess the accuracy of intra-oral
scans and conventional impression measured at various points on a single
tooth preparation.
METHODS:
Ten conventional silicone
impressions, and ten intra oral-scans using eight different digital
intra oral digital scanners were taken of a prepared master tooth. The
conventional impressions were directly digitised using a laboratory
scanner. Each scan/impression was superimposed on a high-accuracy
digital model of the prepared master tooth. For each superimposition,
the deviation from the prepared master tooth was measured at six points
on four two-dimensional cross-sections. Data was analysed using two-way
analysis of variance (ANOVA).
RESULTS:
Most intra oral
scanners had lower accuracy at the preparation margin compared to smooth
surfaces. When only conventional impression and the latest intra oral
scanners of various manufacturers are considered, the mean discrepancy
at the preparation margin was 50μm (SD 16) for conventional impression,
15μm (SD 4) for trios 3, 26μm (SD 4) for LAVA TDS, 29μm (SD 7) for CEREC
Omnicam, 30μm (SD 6) for CS 3600 and 64μm (SD 7) for GC aadva. The
increased accuracy of trios 3 was statistically significant (p<0 .05="" p="">
CONCLUSIONS:
At
the preparation margin, Trios 3 performed significantly better than
conventional impression and the other intra oral scanners. LAVA TDS,
CEREC Omnicam and CS3600 showed similar accuracy at the margin, yet
better than conventional impression and GC Aadva.
Comments