Logged in as Inje University
My Account

Log Out
Share Page:

Volume 31 , Issue 2
March/April 2018

Pages 107113

Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques

Junaid Malik, BDS, MFDS RCSEd, MSc Cons/Jose Rodriguez, DDS, MSc, MFDS, MPros, MRD, PhD/Michael Weisbloom, BTEC/Haralampos Petridis, DDS, MS, PhD

PMID: 29518805
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5643

Purpose: To compare the accuracy (ie, precision and trueness) of full-arch impressions fabricated using either a conventional polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) material or one of two intraoral optical scanners. Materials and Methods: Full-arch impressions of a reference model were obtained using addition silicone impression material (Aquasil Ultra; Dentsply Caulk) and two optical scanners (Trios, 3Shape, and CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Surface matching software (Geomagic Control, 3D Systems) was used to superimpose the scans within groups to determine the mean deviations in precision and trueness (μm) between the scans, which were calculated for each group and compared statistically using one-way analysis of variance with post hoc Bonferroni (trueness) and Games-Howell (precision) tests (IBM SPSS ver 24, IBM UK). Qualitative analysis was also carried out from three-dimensional maps of differences between scans. Results: Means and standard deviations (SD) of deviations in precision for conventional, Trios, and Omnicam groups were 21.7 ( 5.4), 49.9 ( 18.3), and 36.5 ( 11.12) μm, respectively. Means and SDs for deviations in trueness were 24.3 ( 5.7), 87.1 ( 7.9), and 80.3 ( 12.1) μm, respectively. The conventional impression showed statistically significantly improved mean precision (P < .006) and mean trueness (P < .001) compared to both digital impression procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in precision (P = .153) or trueness (P = .757) between the digital impressions. The qualitative analysis revealed local deviations along the palatal surfaces of the molars and incisal edges of the anterior teeth of < 100 μm. Conclusion: Conventional full-arch PVS impressions exhibited improved mean accuracy compared to two direct optical scanners. No significant differences were found between the two digital impression methods.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us