The goal of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral impressions obtained using the Trios 3Shape® and Carestream CS 3600™ scanners, as well as traditional analog impressions using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS), in comparison to a gold standard represented by a laboratory scanner in 51 dental models from 42 patients affected by partial edentulism who required at least two implants. Researchers compare Trios 3Shape®, Carestream CS 3600™ and polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) to see if there is a different accuracy.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
51
A Comparative Study of Digital Versus Analog Impressions
impression taken by intraoral scanner
Clinica Odontoiatrica Giorgio Vogel (Università degli studi di Milano)
Milan, Italy, Italy
Clinical and radiological evaluation of soft tissues and bone level in implant supported rehabilitations performed with Flapless Computer-Guided implantology. A prospective clinical study.
The statistical analyses were performed using AnalystSoft StatPlus®. Using GOM Inspect by Zeiss®, the mean deviation values from the reference file were calculated for each model. They were expressed in absolute terms. In our study, for each of the three test techniques (TRIOS®-3Shape, CS 3600® Carestream Dental, and PVS), the average of the values obtained from the superimpositions of 51 models was calculated, resulting in the mean deviation of each method from the reference. For data analysis, a one-way ANOVA test and a two-sample Z-test were applied, with a significance level (α) set at 0.05. These tests were used both to compare the mean distances and to assess the standard deviations of the deviations. Each technique was considered accurate if its mean deviation was less than 30 μm.
Time frame: Patients included in this prospective study were recruited from 2017 to 2022
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.