IADR Abstract Archives
RCT on Confounders Affecting the Marginal Quality of Intraoral Scanning
Objectives: To assess the clinical performance of different intraoral optical scanning (IOS) devices evaluating the minimal distance to produce well-defined interproximal margins between prepared abutment teeth / soft tissue (vertical-distance); and abutments / adjacent teeth (horizontal-distance).
Methods: Thirty patients in need of an onlay / inlay were included and randomly divided in three groups of ten (3x n=10) according to the used IOS for chair-side capturing: (A) GC-Europe (Aadva, Belgium); (B) True-Definition-TD (3M, USA); (C) Trios (3Shape, Denmark). All abutment teeth were prepared with supragingivally margins. A total of ten scans from each group (A), (B), and (C), were obtained ad stored as STL-files.
Each file was imported to the Exocad platform, into a laboratory scanner (Aadva, Tokyo, Japan). The software measured the distance between each margin and the adjacent tooth interproximally, and the gingival tissue. The distance at which the detection of the margin started to become unclear was recorded for both vertical and horizontal distances. Data was processed statistically by one-way ANOVA (p>.05).
This research was approved by the Ethical-Committee of the University of Siena.
Results: Results: The number of scans rejected from the study due to obvious errors was 2 for D640, 3 for GC, 3 for TD; essentially were the first scanning shots made by the operator (20%, 30%, 30%). No statistically significant differences were found among the three groups. The required distance, which could maintain a clear and visible margin was 0.5-0.6mm for all images, regardless of which IOS was used (Table 1; group with the same letter did not show any statistical significant difference).
Horizontal Distance (in mm ± SD) Vertical Distance (in mm ± SD)
D640 0,45a (0,04) A 0,59A (0,03) A
GC 0,44a (0,0276) A 0,48A (0,02) A
TD 0,44a (0,0623) A 0,46A (0,06) A
Conclusions: None of the tested IOS in this study were capable to record a clear and distortion-free digital impression when the cervical margin for a posterior partial crown was located at a distance less than 0.5-0.6mm from the Gingiva or from the interproximal neighbor. Under the experimental clinical conditions, all IOS performed similarly.
Methods: Thirty patients in need of an onlay / inlay were included and randomly divided in three groups of ten (3x n=10) according to the used IOS for chair-side capturing: (A) GC-Europe (Aadva, Belgium); (B) True-Definition-TD (3M, USA); (C) Trios (3Shape, Denmark). All abutment teeth were prepared with supragingivally margins. A total of ten scans from each group (A), (B), and (C), were obtained ad stored as STL-files.
Each file was imported to the Exocad platform, into a laboratory scanner (Aadva, Tokyo, Japan). The software measured the distance between each margin and the adjacent tooth interproximally, and the gingival tissue. The distance at which the detection of the margin started to become unclear was recorded for both vertical and horizontal distances. Data was processed statistically by one-way ANOVA (p>.05).
This research was approved by the Ethical-Committee of the University of Siena.
Results: Results: The number of scans rejected from the study due to obvious errors was 2 for D640, 3 for GC, 3 for TD; essentially were the first scanning shots made by the operator (20%, 30%, 30%). No statistically significant differences were found among the three groups. The required distance, which could maintain a clear and visible margin was 0.5-0.6mm for all images, regardless of which IOS was used (Table 1; group with the same letter did not show any statistical significant difference).
Horizontal Distance (in mm ± SD) Vertical Distance (in mm ± SD)
D640 0,45a (0,04) A 0,59A (0,03) A
GC 0,44a (0,0276) A 0,48A (0,02) A
TD 0,44a (0,0623) A 0,46A (0,06) A
Conclusions: None of the tested IOS in this study were capable to record a clear and distortion-free digital impression when the cervical margin for a posterior partial crown was located at a distance less than 0.5-0.6mm from the Gingiva or from the interproximal neighbor. Under the experimental clinical conditions, all IOS performed similarly.