Purpose
To study the effect of implant analog system, print orientation, and analog holder radial offset on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in 3D printed resin models.
Materials and Methods
A sectional master model simulating a 2‐implant, 3‐unit fixed prosthesis in a partially edentulous jaw was fabricated. Three implant analog systems for 3D printed resin models—Straumann (ST), Core3DCentres (CD) and Medentika (MD)—were tested. The corresponding scan bodies were secured onto the implants and scanned using an intraoral scanner. Models were obtained with a Digital Light Processing printer. Each implant analog system had 2 print orientations (transverse [X] and perpendicular [Y] to the printer door) and 2 analog holder radial offsets (0.04 mm and 0.06 mm), for a total of 60 models. The physical positions of the implants in the master model and the analogs in the printed resin models were directly measured with a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D accuracy of the analogs in the printed models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyse data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05).
Results
Mean ΔR for ST (–155.7 ± 60.6 µm), CD (124.9 ± 65.0 µm) and MD (–92.9 ± 48.0 µm) were significantly different (p < 0.01). Mean Absdθ was not significantly different between ST (0.57 ± 0.48°) and CD (0.41 ± 0.27°), but both were significantly different from MD (2.11 ± 1.14°) (p < 0.01). Print orientation had a significant effect on ΔR only but no discernible trend could be found. Analog holder radial offset had no significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ.
Conclusions
Implant analog system had a significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ. Compared to the master model, CD produced greater mean interanalog distances, while ST and MD produced smaller mean interanalog distances. MD exhibited the greatest mean angular distortion which was significantly greater than ST and CD.
This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the 3Shape TRIOS intraoral scanner (IOS) in student crown preparation evaluation. Design: Students were tasked to perform a full metal crown preparation on the upper left first molar on a patient simulator within 45 minutes. Marginal Width, Occlusal Reduction, Presence of Undercuts, Taper, Planes of Reduction, Line Angles, Conformity to Gingival Contour, and Smoothness were evaluated via 3 assessment modes: (a) Conventional assessment by 2 supervisors; (b) Conventional assessment by students; (c) Digital assessment by students. Agreement between assessment modes was investigated using Kappa (κ), with a threshold set at κ > 0.4. Effectiveness of IOS for objective parameters was determined via physical verification, while that for subjective parameters was defined by agreement with the stricter supervisor grade. Results: Substantial agreement (κ = 0.631) was found between IOS measurement of Marginal Width and physical verification. Two of 5 subjective parameters met κ > 0.4 for agreement between IOS and the stricter supervisor grade. Agreement between supervisors ranged from slight (κ = 0.103) for Occlusal Reduction to Fair (κ = 0.399) for Marginal Width. Agreement between conventional assessments of supervisors and students ranged from less than chance (κ = −0.142) for Occlusal Reduction to moderate (κ = 0.577) for Line Angles. Agreement between conventional assessments of supervisors and digital assessments of students ranged from slight (κ = 0.130) for Planes of Reduction to moderate (κ = 0.538) for Line Angles. Conclusions: IOS may be used to overcome limitations in conventional assessment of objective parameters and some subjective parameters. Digital assessment of crown preparations cannot completely replace conventional assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.