Scholarlink

Background <p>The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the distance and angular accuracy of current intraoral scanners and photogrammetry devices in a full-arch implant model.</p> Methods <p>Six multi-unit abutment replicas (Astra Tech EV) were placed on an edentulous maxillary model. Scan bodies were placed on the replicas, and a reference model was obtained with a laboratory scanner (inEos X5). Intraoral scannings were made with three different scanners (Primescan, Trios 5, iTero Lumina) and photogrammetry impressions were made after inserting the optical markers of two different devices (PIC system, Oxo Core) into the replicas (n:10). The data obtained from five different study groups and the reference model were transferred to a reverse engineering program (Geomagic) and, the distance and angular accuracy between the analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed with Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, followed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests and one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05).</p> Results <p>Primescan gave the best results in terms of distance trueness (24.75 ± 17.11&#xa0;μm), while Trios 5 yielded the most deviation (202.01 ± 44.04&#xa0;μm). Primescan (0.26°) and Pic system (0.28°) were the most accurate study groups in terms of angular trueness. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in precision comparison.</p> Conclusions <p>Primescan yielded most accurate results in terms of both distance and angular parameters. Less distance accuracy for Trios 5 and angular accuracy for Oxo Core and iTero Lumina were observed in full-arch implant cases.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison between accuracies of intraoral scanning and photogrammetry techniques performed with various devices in full-arch implant impressions

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月12日

查看全文
  • Berkman Albayrak,
  • İzim Türker Kader,
  • Elif Nur Köroğlu,
  • Alper Aktosun

摘要

Background

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the distance and angular accuracy of current intraoral scanners and photogrammetry devices in a full-arch implant model.

Methods

Six multi-unit abutment replicas (Astra Tech EV) were placed on an edentulous maxillary model. Scan bodies were placed on the replicas, and a reference model was obtained with a laboratory scanner (inEos X5). Intraoral scannings were made with three different scanners (Primescan, Trios 5, iTero Lumina) and photogrammetry impressions were made after inserting the optical markers of two different devices (PIC system, Oxo Core) into the replicas (n:10). The data obtained from five different study groups and the reference model were transferred to a reverse engineering program (Geomagic) and, the distance and angular accuracy between the analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed with Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, followed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests and one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni tests (α = 0.05).

Results

Primescan gave the best results in terms of distance trueness (24.75 ± 17.11 μm), while Trios 5 yielded the most deviation (202.01 ± 44.04 μm). Primescan (0.26°) and Pic system (0.28°) were the most accurate study groups in terms of angular trueness. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in precision comparison.

Conclusions

Primescan yielded most accurate results in terms of both distance and angular parameters. Less distance accuracy for Trios 5 and angular accuracy for Oxo Core and iTero Lumina were observed in full-arch implant cases.