Conclusionįor implant impressions in partially edentulous patients, intraoral oral scanning using a scan body significantly improves scanning and overall accuracy. The mean deviation was recorded as 21.45 ± 3.3 μm, 40.04 ± 4.1 μm, and 47.79 ± 4.6 μm for the intraoral scanning of the scan body, the conventional closed, and open tray, respectively. The total deviation was statistically significantly different (P = 0.000) among the different studied groups. The total deviation between groups was compared to the reference group represented by the intraoral scanning of the abutment. Statistical comparisons were carried out between the studied groups using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. The deviation in implant position between the groups was measured using special 3D inspection and metrology software. In intraoral scanning of the scan body, computer-aided design software was used for the replacement of the scan body with a custom-made abutment that is identical to the stock abutment, allowing comparison with the other impression techniques. The conventional impressions were poured into stone casts with analogues and stock abutments and scanned using a desktop scanner. Each patient has undergone four impression techniques: direct intraoral scanning of the stock abutment, intraoral scanning using a scan body, conventional closed tray impression technique, and the conventional open tray impression technique. Sixteen implants were placed in eight patients. This in vivo study aims to assess the accuracy of the digital intraoral implant impression technique, the conventional closed-tray impression technique, and open-tray impression techniques in a standardized method of data segmentation along with the best-fit algorithm to overcome the inconsistency of results of previous studies regarding implant impression techniques.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |