Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAlpkilic, Dilara Seyma
dc.contributor.authorDeger, Sabire
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-04T11:53:24Z
dc.date.available2022-07-04T11:53:24Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationAlpkilic D. S. , Deger S., "In Vitro Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional Impression and Four Intraoral Scanners in Four Different Implant Impression Scenarios", INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, cilt.37, sa.1, ss.39-48, 2022
dc.identifier.issn0882-2786
dc.identifier.otherav_03d6a34a-a8f0-4be3-b9ff-2cff490f994e
dc.identifier.othervv_1032021
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12627/181413
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9172
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and splinted open-tray conventional implant impression (SOCI) in partial and total edentulism. Materials and Methods: Four gypsum models (Model A-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, and right canine; Model B- implants at mandibular right canine, left central incisor, and left canine; Model C-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, right canine, left central incisor, and left canine; and Model D-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, right canine, left central incisor, left canine, left second premolar, and left second molar) were prepared, and four different IOSs (Aadva IOS, CS 3600, Trios 3, and Emerald) and one polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) were used. Reference models were digitized with a high-resolution industrial scanner, and data were superimposed. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated by software and defined as deviation values after superimposition. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test were performed to analyze the data (P < .05). Results: For Models A and B, the truest impressions were made with Aadva, followed by CS 3600, PVS, Trios 3, and Emerald, respectively, while for Model C, the truest impressions were made with CS 3600, followed by Aadva, PVS, Trios 3, and Emerald, and for Model D, the truest impressions were made with Aadva, followed by CS 3600, PVS, Emerald, and Trios 3 (P .05). There was no statistical difference between groups for precision in Models A, B, and C (P .05); however, PVS showed lower precision values than other groups in Model D (P < .05). Conclusion: In partial edentulism, IOSs are true and precise as SOCI except Emerald. However, the trueness of IOSs is not favorable in total edentulism cases. SOCI with PVS in total edentulism treated with implants is less precise than IOSs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37: 39-48. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9172
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectDentistry (miscellaneous)
dc.subjectDental Hygiene
dc.subjectPeriodontics
dc.subjectDental Assisting
dc.subjectGeneral Dentistry
dc.subjectHealth Sciences
dc.subjectOrthodontics
dc.subjectOral Surgery
dc.subjectDiş Hekimliği
dc.subjectSağlık Bilimleri
dc.subjectTıp
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp (MED)
dc.subjectKlinik Tıp
dc.subjectDİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ, ORAL CERRAHİ VE TIP
dc.titleIn Vitro Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional Impression and Four Intraoral Scanners in Four Different Implant Impression Scenarios
dc.typeMakale
dc.relation.journalINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
dc.contributor.departmentİstanbul Üniversitesi , Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi , Klinik Bilimler Bölümü
dc.identifier.volume37
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.startpage39
dc.identifier.endpage48
dc.contributor.firstauthorID3402985


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record