Farklı dijital ölçü sistemlerinin dental implantın ölçü netliğine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi

Giriş ve Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı; farklı dijital ölçü sistemlerinin dental implantın ölçü netliğine etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir. Yöntem ve Gereçler: Standart olarak üretilen tam dişli üst çene modelinde, 26 nolu diş modelden çıkartılarak yerine bir implant analoğu yerleştirildi. Tarama işlemi ilk olarak referans tarayıcı ile gerçekleştirildi. Ağız içi tarayıcılar ile ölçü alınması işlemi; 3 farklı dijital tarayıcı [Trios 3, iTero Element 2 ve Medit i500] kullanılarak her bir grup için 10 kez tekrarlandı. Elde edilen görüntülerin STL (standard tessellation language) formatında çıktısı alındı ve 3 boyutlu inceleme yazılımı kullanılarak karşılaştırıldı. Ölçülerin gerçekliğini ve doğruluğunu belirlemek için elde edilen STL veri setleri çakıştırılarak ortalama sapma miktarları belirlendi. Elde edilen veriler Kruskal-Wallis testi ve Mann-Whitney U testleri ile istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel anlamlılık düzeyi p

Evaluation of the effect of different digital impression systems on the impression accuracy of dental implant

Introduction: The purpose of this in-vitro study is to evaluate the effect of different digital impression systems on the impression accuracy of dental implant. Methods: In a standard full-arch maxillary model, the tooth 26 was removed and an implant analogue was placed. The scanning process was first performed with a reference scanner. Taking measurements with intra-oral scanners repeated 10 times for each group using 3 different digital scanners [Trios 3, iTero Element 2 and Medit i500]. Obtained images were output in STL format and compared using 3D inspection software. The mean deviation amounts were determined by overlapping the STL data obtained to determine the trueness and precision of the impressions. The data were statistically compared using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U tests. Statistical significance was determined at p

PDF

___

1. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-4.
2. Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:e185-9.
3. Svanborg P, Skjerven H, Carlsson P, Eliasson A, Karlsson S, Ortorp A. Marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses generated from digital and conventional impressions. Int J Dent 2014;53:438-2.
4. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:184-90.
5. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11.
6. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aust Dent J 2011;9:97-106.
7. Lin WS, Metz MJ, Pollini A, Ntounis A, Morton D. Digital data acquisition for a CAD/CAMfabricated titanium framework and zirconium oxide restorations for an implant-supported fixed complete dental prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1324-9.
8. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, et al: Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9.
9. Ting-Shu S, Jian S: Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:313-21.
10. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:422-8.
11. Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343-9.
12. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8.
13. International Organization for Standardization. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results Part 1: General principles and definitions (ISO 5725-1:1994). Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH; 1997.
14. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:39- 41.
15. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent 2015;24:498-504.
16. Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673-82.
17. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1318-23.
18. Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1430-5.
19. Joda T, Bragger U. Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: a prospective clinical crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30((5):1047-53.
20. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9.
21. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20.