We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo.
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics 2017 November
PURPOSE: System-specific scanning strategies have been shown to influence the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions. Special guided scanning procedures have been implemented for specific intraoral scanning systems with special regard to the digital orthodontic workflow. The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of guided scanning procedures compared to conventional impression techniques in vivo.
METHOD: Two intraoral scanning systems with implemented full-arch guided scanning procedures (Cerec Omnicam Ortho; Ormco Lythos) were included along with one conventional impression technique with irreversible hydrocolloid material (alginate). Full-arch impressions were taken three times each from 5 participants (n = 15). Impressions were then compared within the test groups using a point-to-surface distance method after best-fit model matching (OraCheck). Precision was calculated using the (90-10%)/2 quantile and statistical analysis with one-way repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni test was performed.
RESULTS: The conventional impression technique with alginate showed the lowest precision for full-arch impressions with 162.2 ± 71.3 µm. Both guided scanning procedures performed statistically significantly better than the conventional impression technique (p < 0.05). Mean values for group Cerec Omnicam Ortho were 74.5 ± 39.2 µm and for group Ormco Lythos 91.4 ± 48.8 µm.
CONCLUSIONS: The in vivo precision of guided scanning procedures exceeds conventional impression techniques with the irreversible hydrocolloid material alginate. Guided scanning procedures may be highly promising for clinical applications, especially for digital orthodontic workflows.
METHOD: Two intraoral scanning systems with implemented full-arch guided scanning procedures (Cerec Omnicam Ortho; Ormco Lythos) were included along with one conventional impression technique with irreversible hydrocolloid material (alginate). Full-arch impressions were taken three times each from 5 participants (n = 15). Impressions were then compared within the test groups using a point-to-surface distance method after best-fit model matching (OraCheck). Precision was calculated using the (90-10%)/2 quantile and statistical analysis with one-way repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni test was performed.
RESULTS: The conventional impression technique with alginate showed the lowest precision for full-arch impressions with 162.2 ± 71.3 µm. Both guided scanning procedures performed statistically significantly better than the conventional impression technique (p < 0.05). Mean values for group Cerec Omnicam Ortho were 74.5 ± 39.2 µm and for group Ormco Lythos 91.4 ± 48.8 µm.
CONCLUSIONS: The in vivo precision of guided scanning procedures exceeds conventional impression techniques with the irreversible hydrocolloid material alginate. Guided scanning procedures may be highly promising for clinical applications, especially for digital orthodontic workflows.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app