A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Effect of an auxiliary device on scanning accuracy for multiple implants: an in vitro comparative study. | LitMetric

Effect of an auxiliary device on scanning accuracy for multiple implants: an in vitro comparative study.

Head Face Med

State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & National Center for Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Oral Implantology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, China.

Published: April 2025


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objectives: To determine the influence of a consumable auxiliary device, the O-I buckle, on the accuracy of intraoral scanning among complete arches.

Methods: A standard mandibular model with six implants was used as the master model and was scanned by a precise dental laboratory scanner to establish a reference. Three impression techniques were compared: the conventional splinted open-tray impression (CI group), the digital intraoral scanning technique (IOS group), and IOS with the auxiliary device (OI group). For OI group, six prefabricated O-I buckles were attached for each intraoral scan body (ISB) and the definite models were scanned 10 times. The STL datasets were imported into a 3D inspection software to obtain the trueness and precision values for three scanning ranges (BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF). The trueness was the absolute value of the root mean square (RMS) between the reference and test models, while precision referred to the value of the test group subtracted from each other. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post hoc multiple comparison tests.

Results: The impression method (p <.001) and scanning range (p <.001) significantly influenced the trueness and precision of implant impressions for complete edentulous arches. The IOS with O-I buckle showed higher trueness compared to the IOS group for all implant configurations with most being significantly different (p =.758, = 0.04, and = < 0.001 for BCDE, BCDEF, and ABCDEF, respectively) and significantly higher precision was seen in group ABCDEF (p <.001). For four and five implants (group BCDE and BCDEF), there was no significant difference comparing IOS with O-I buckle and CI (p >.05). As the range expanded, the trueness and precision of IOS and OI decreased (p <.05), whereas the accuracy of CI remained stable.

Conclusions: The auxiliary O-I buckle fixed to the ISBs significantly improved the multiple-implant intraoral scanning accuracy for digital impressions in complete arches; With CI as a reference, the accuracy of IOS with OI buckles were comparable for four and five implants.

Clinical Relevance: The digitization accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete edentulous arches can be improved through IOS with OI buckles. This may lead to improved passive fit of the restoration, improving patient outcomes in a convenient and cheap way.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12036170PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13005-025-00511-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

auxiliary device
12
intraoral scanning
8
group
5
scanning
4
device scanning
4
scanning accuracy
4
accuracy multiple
4
multiple implants
4
implants vitro
4
vitro comparative
4

Similar Publications