![]() ![]() Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions. ConclusionsĮxcept for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero ( p < 0.05). ![]() Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. A level of statistical significance of p < 0.05 was set. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. ![]() Materials and methodsĪ representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |