A detailed statistical analysis was carried out. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®) five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. Two gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants. Until now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |