Trueness of Intraoral Scanners Considering Operator Experience and Three Different Implant Scenarios: A Preliminary Report

Canullo, Luigi; Colombo, Marco; Menini, María; Sorge, Patrizia; Pesce, Paolo

doi:10.11607/ijp.6224

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such outcomes confirm that intraoral scanning might be more challenging in case of implant-supported full-arch rehabilitations compared to partial rehabilitations. Similar results were obtained by Canullo et al [8], where in the full-arch impression using the CS3600 (Carestream) IOS better values of trueness were obtained by the unexperienced operator.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…In the present in vitro investigation, the same methodology was applied as reported in a previously published study [8]. Three plaster master casts were made reproducing three different implant clinical situations (Figure 1):…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent in vitro study analyzed the performance of two different IOS considering the operator experience. The results showed that scans of single implant rehabilitations or bridges with two pontic elements display a very high level of accuracy, in contrast with full-arch rehabilitations that presented the worst trueness [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Several studies have reported high levels of accuracy and precision of IOS, both in vitro and in vivo [3,[5][6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Analysis on the Effect of Operators’ Experience and Implant Number

Pesce

Bagnasco

Pancini

et al. 2021

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Intraoral scanners (IOS) are widely used in prosthodontics. However, a good trueness is mandatory to achieve optimal clinical results. The aim of the present in vitro study was to compare two IOS considering the operator’s experience and different implant clinical scenarios. (2) Methods: Two IOS (IT—Itero, Align Technology; and OP—Opera MC, Opera System, Monaco) were compared simulating three different clinical scenarios: single implant, two implants, and full-arch rehabilitation. Ten scans were taken for each configuration by two different operators (one expert, one inexperienced); influence of operator experience and the type of scanner used was investigated. (3) Results: Trueness of the scans differed between the experienced and non-experienced operator and this difference was statistically significant in all the three scenarios (p = 0.000–0.001, 0.037). A significant difference was present between the scanners (p = 0.000), in the two-implant and full-arch scenarios (p = 0.00). (4) Conclusions: Experience of the operator significantly affect trueness of IT and OP scanners. A statistically significant difference was present among IOS in the two-implant and full-arch scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Several studies have reported high levels of accuracy and precision of IOS, both in vitro and in vivo [3,[5][6][7][8][9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Analysis on the Effect of Operators’ Experience and Implant Number

Pesce

Bagnasco

Pancini

et al. 2021

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…19 No effect of experience was reported on trueness for a gypsum cast with 4 scan bodies with the Carestream CS 3600 or with the TRIOS 3 scanners. 27 These studies used complete surface alignment, including the edentulous mucosa and the scan bodies, with the deviation being measured on the complete surface. The best-fit algorithm minimizes surface distances 28 and does not recognize identical points.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

Revell

Simon

Mennito

et al. 2022

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The trueness of intraoral scanners for edentulous complete-arch scans with scan bodies has been investigated with a wide range of deviation from 31 mm to 810 mm, depending on the scanner type and measurement method. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] High deviation of the digital scan may result in a misfit of an implant prosthesis, which increases stresses and could lead to fracture of the screw, 8 abutments, or the veneer 9 or induce screw loosening. 10 The deviation at each implant should be less than 50 mm. 11,12 In the contemporary laboratory process, fabrication error falls within a range of 25 to 43 mm. [13][14][15] Thus, the intraoral scanner error should be in a similar range to keep the total error less than 50 mm. A clinical study using a completely

show abstract

Digital Workflow in Dental Public Health, Preventive Dentistry, and Dental Education

Agius¹,

Attard²,

Gatt³

et al. 2022

Digital Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners Considering Operator Experience and Three Different Implant Scenarios: A Preliminary Report

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Analysis on the Effect of Operators’ Experience and Implant Number

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Analysis on the Effect of Operators’ Experience and Implant Number

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

Digital Workflow in Dental Public Health, Preventive Dentistry, and Dental Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About