IADR Abstract Archives
Accuracy of different intraoral scanners in recording digital impression for post spaces with different depths
Objectives: The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has been evaluated. However, testing their performance when scanning post space preparations is lacking. The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of post space depth on scanning accuracy and to compare the accuracy of post space digital impressions of different IOSs
Methods: The digital impressions of 16 human teeth (N=16) with post spaces of either 8 mm or 10 mm were captured. 3 different Intra Oral Scanners were used; Primescan AC (Densply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), Medit i500 (Medit Corp, Seoul, South Korea), and CS 3600 Scanner (Carestream Dental, Stuttgart, Germany). STL files were compared with files obtained from scanning traditional impressions with an extraoral desktop scanner InEos X5 (Densply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). A reverse engineering software (Control X 2018, Geomagic, 3D systems, USA) was employed to measure the accuracy of the IOS. Trueness values were analyzed for the effect of depth of post space and scanner type using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. The significance level was set at p<0.05 within all tests.
Results: A significant difference in (RMS) values between different scanners was found (p<0.001). The highest (RMS) value was found with CS 3600 (0.30±0.11), followed by Primescan (0.26±0.09), while the lowest value was found with Medit i500 (0.18±0.05). Samples with 8 mm post space had a significantly higher (RMS) value than 10 mm samples; respectively (0.28±0.10) (0.21±0.09) (p=0.009).
Conclusions: Trueness of digital impression is affected by both the type of IOS used and post space depth. Medit i500 showed the highest trueness compared to CS 3600, and Primescan
Methods: The digital impressions of 16 human teeth (N=16) with post spaces of either 8 mm or 10 mm were captured. 3 different Intra Oral Scanners were used; Primescan AC (Densply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), Medit i500 (Medit Corp, Seoul, South Korea), and CS 3600 Scanner (Carestream Dental, Stuttgart, Germany). STL files were compared with files obtained from scanning traditional impressions with an extraoral desktop scanner InEos X5 (Densply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany). A reverse engineering software (Control X 2018, Geomagic, 3D systems, USA) was employed to measure the accuracy of the IOS. Trueness values were analyzed for the effect of depth of post space and scanner type using two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. The significance level was set at p<0.05 within all tests.
Results: A significant difference in (RMS) values between different scanners was found (p<0.001). The highest (RMS) value was found with CS 3600 (0.30±0.11), followed by Primescan (0.26±0.09), while the lowest value was found with Medit i500 (0.18±0.05). Samples with 8 mm post space had a significantly higher (RMS) value than 10 mm samples; respectively (0.28±0.10) (0.21±0.09) (p=0.009).
Conclusions: Trueness of digital impression is affected by both the type of IOS used and post space depth. Medit i500 showed the highest trueness compared to CS 3600, and Primescan