Trueness comparison of digital model obtaining methods for single restoration

• Published in: International dental journal 2023-09, Vol.73, p.S45-S45
• Main Authors: Simaponchai, Ms. Kornpavee, Sasiwilasakorn, Ms. Suchanun, Hanvivattanakul, Mr. Korravit, Sangvichit, Ms. Pemika, Srimakhajon, Ms Kritsaya, Charasseangpaisarn, Asst. Prof. Taksid
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0020-6539; 1875-595X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.07.676

To compared the trueness of digital model obtained from 3 different intraoral scanners (IOS), impression scanning, and working model scanning for all-ceramic single restoration. Tooth 46 was prepared for all-ceramic restoration on dental model. The tooth was scanned with 3shape E3 as reference file. The eight test files of each group were obtained from scanning the model with 3 IOS (iTero Element 5D (IT), 3Shape TRIOS 4 (TF), Medit i700 (MD)), impression was taken and scanned with 3shape E3 (IM), then working model was fabricated and scanned with 3shape E3 (CA). The test file was compared to reference file with Geomagic Control X. The 9 comparing points were measured on each surface (occlusal, mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual). The 32 comparing points were measured on finishing line. The mean deviation (µm) of 3 parameters (surface, finishing line, and overall) was analyzed with one-way ANOVA. All IOS groups (IT, TF, and MD) had lower deviation than IM and CA group, while IM showed the highest deviation on all parameters. Between IOS groups, IT group showed the lowest surface deviation followed by MD and TF group. The MD and TF group showed lower finishing line deviation than IT group. For overall deviation, MD and IT group had lower deviation than TF group. For all-ceramic single restoration, digital impression with IOS was recommended due to the less deviation. If the IOS does not exist, scanning working model is recommended over scanning impression. However, the deviation of all groups was in clinical acceptance value.