4/6/2023 0 Comments Onecast for sp4![]() ![]() Scans of the central incisor and premolar implants had the lowest trueness when scanned with SP1 (P≤.009), while the scans of molar implant showed higher trueness when performed by using SP2 and SP3 when compared with SP4 (P≤.005). The implant at the molar site (71.9 ☒5.7, 147.2 ±49.7) had trueness either similar to (when SP2 was used, P≥.276) or lower than (when SP4 was used, P≤.024) those of others. The implant located at the central incisor site (56.7 ☓5.9, 36.2 ☑8.6) had higher trueness than that of located at the premolar site (94.1 ☒0.4, 100.3 ☒0) when SP2 (P=.037) and SP4 (P=.002) were used. ![]() Trueness (P=.001) and precision (P=.018) were significantly affected by the interaction between the scan pattern and implant location. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests for accuracy (α=.05). The test scans were superimposed over the MRM file with a metrology software to calculate the distance deviations of the CHA-SB system. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) was used to perform the test scans (n=8) with 4 different scan patterns (SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4) with an intraoral scanner. ![]() The model was scanned with an industrial light scanner to generate a master reference model (MRM) file. : To test the effect of scan pattern and the location of the implant on the trueness and precision of implant scans when the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system is used.Ī partially edentulous maxillary model with CHA-SBs secured on implants at 3 different sites in the left quadrant (central incisor, first premolar, and first molar) was fabricated. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |