Publication
In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants
| datacite.subject.fos | Ciências Médicas | |
| datacite.subject.sdg | 03:Saúde de Qualidade | |
| dc.contributor.author | Roig, Elena | |
| dc.contributor.author | Garza, Luis Carlos | |
| dc.contributor.author | Álvarez-Maldonado, Natalia | |
| dc.contributor.author | Maia, Paulo | |
| dc.contributor.author | Costa, Santiago | |
| dc.contributor.author | Roig, Miguel | |
| dc.contributor.author | Espona, José | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-07-23T11:30:03Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2025-07-23T11:30:03Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2020-02 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Purpose To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials. Materials and Methods Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans. Results Compared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques. Conclusions Optical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions. | eng |
| dc.identifier.citation | Roig E, Garza LC, Álvarez-Maldonado N, Maia P, Costa S, Roig M, et al. (2020) In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0228266. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228266 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1371/journal.pone.0228266 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1932-6203 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/58162 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.peerreviewed | yes | |
| dc.publisher | PLOS | |
| dc.relation.hasversion | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228266 | |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
| dc.title | In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants | eng |
| dc.type | contribution to journal | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| oaire.citation.issue | 2 | |
| oaire.citation.startPage | e0228266 | |
| oaire.citation.title | PLoS ONE | |
| oaire.citation.volume | 15 | |
| oaire.version | http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |