Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence

dc.authorid Diker, Burcu/0000-0001-5367-9369
dc.authorid TAK, Önjen/0000-0002-3578-9078
dc.authorscopusid 57211562034
dc.authorscopusid 23101443200
dc.authorwosid Diker, Burcu/AAY-3102-2021
dc.authorwosid TAK, Önjen/AAQ-8052-2020
dc.authorwosid diker, burcu/AAS-6749-2021
dc.contributor.author Diker, Burcu
dc.contributor.author Tak, Onjen
dc.date.accessioned 2024-05-25T12:30:56Z
dc.date.available 2024-05-25T12:30:56Z
dc.date.issued 2020
dc.department Okan University en_US
dc.department-temp [Diker, Burcu; Tak, Onjen] Istanbul Okan Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Istanbul, Turkey en_US
dc.description Diker, Burcu/0000-0001-5367-9369; TAK, Önjen/0000-0002-3578-9078; en_US
dc.description.abstract PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann- Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (alpha=.05). RESULTS. The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 mu m), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 mu m), Omnicam (41.5 mu m and 18 mu m), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 mu m), Fiero (70 and 12 mu m) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 mu m). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right (P=.009). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Pritnescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations. en_US
dc.identifier.citationcount 27
dc.identifier.doi 10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.299
dc.identifier.endpage 306 en_US
dc.identifier.issn 2005-7806
dc.identifier.issn 2005-7814
dc.identifier.issue 5 en_US
dc.identifier.pmid 33149851
dc.identifier.scopus 2-s2.0-85096904044
dc.identifier.scopusquality Q1
dc.identifier.startpage 299 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.299
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/2223
dc.identifier.volume 12 en_US
dc.identifier.wos WOS:000585175400007
dc.identifier.wosquality Q3
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Korean Acad Prosthodontics en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategory Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı en_US
dc.rights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US
dc.scopus.citedbyCount 42
dc.subject Trueness en_US
dc.subject Precision en_US
dc.subject Digital impression en_US
dc.title Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.wos.citedbyCount 36
dspace.entity.type Publication

Files