KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Selcuk Dental Journal / 2026 / Volume: 12 Issue: 1

Tam ark dijital implant ölçüsü için optik üçgenleştirme ve konfokal mikroskopi teknolojisini kullanan intraoral tarayıcının hassasiyeti: in vivo ve in vitro değerlendirme

Accuracy of an intraoral scanner that uses optical triangulation and confocal microscopy technology for full-arch digital implant impression: in vivo and in vitro evaluation

Taygun Sezer(ERCİYES ÜNİVERSİTESİ, DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-4169-4788
Emir Esim(ERCIYES UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF MECHATRONICS ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF MECHATRONICS)0000-0003-0801-9155
Erkan Yilmaz(ERCIYES UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ENGINEERING, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN ENGINEERING)0000-0003-2172-1432
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2025-04-21
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bulgular: Her iki grupta da tarama aralığı arttıkça doğruluk ve kesinlik azalma eğilimi gösterdi.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, tam ark dijital implant ölçülerinin hassasiyetini hem in vivo hem de in vitro koşullar altında analiz etmektir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Ortalama toplam mesafe doğruluğu IOS grubu ve EIOS grubu için sırasıyla 121.53±89.55 μm ve 57.75±65.17 μm olarak bulundu (p=0.001).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bulgular: Her iki grupta da tarama aralığı arttıkça doğruluk ve kesinlik azalma eğilimi gösterdi.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Dental arches · dental impression technique · digital technology

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, tam ark dijital implant ölçülerinin hassasiyetini hem in vivo hem de in vitro koşullar altında analiz etmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Tam dişsiz üst çenesine dört implant yerleştirilen hastaya bir geçici protez yapıldı. Geçici protezler kullanılarak ana model elde edildi. Ağız içi tarayıcı kullanılarak intraoral taramalar (IOS grubu) ve ana modelin ekstraoral taramaları (EIOS grubu) gerçekleştirildi. IOS ve EIOS gruplarının hassasiyeti, tarama gövdeleri (A-B, A-C ve A-D) arasındaki üç mesafe ve üç açının yanı sıra tüm segmentlerin ortalama sapmaları (toplam sapmalar) için hesaplandı. Bulgular: Her iki grupta da tarama aralığı arttıkça doğruluk ve kesinlik azalma eğilimi gösterdi. Ortalama toplam mesafe doğruluğu IOS grubu ve EIOS grubu için sırasıyla 121.53±89.55 μm ve 57.75±65.17 μm olarak bulundu (p=0.001). Ortalama toplam açı doğruluğu IOS grubu ve EIOS grubu için sırasıyla 0.53±0.28 derece ve 0.13±0.09 derece olarak bulundu (p<.001). Ortalama toplam mesafe kesinliği IOS grubu ve EIOS grubu için sırasıyla 76.73±87.26 μm ve 59.57±70.44 μm olarak bulundu (p=0.051). Ortalama toplam açı kesinliği IOS grubu ve EIOS grubu için sırasıyla 0.32±0.24 derece ve 0.13±0.09 derece olarak bulundu (p<.001). Sonuç: İn vivo tam ark dijital implant ölçülerinin hassasiyeti in vitroya göre daha düşüktü ve daha önce bildirilen kabul edilebilir eşiğin altına düştü.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to analyse the accuracy of the full-arch digital implant impressions under both in vivo and in vitro conditions. Methods: A provisional prosthesis was fabricated for a patient with four implants placed in the edentulous maxilla. The master model was obtained using provisional prostheses. Both intraoral scans (IOS group) and extraoral scans (EIOS group) of the master model were performed using an intraoral scanner. The accuracy of the IOS and EIOS groups was calculated for three distances and three angles between the scan bodies (A-B, A-C, and A-D), as well as for the mean deviations of all segments (total deviations). Results: Trueness and precision showed a tendency to decrease as the scanning range increased in both groups. The mean total distance trueness was found to be 121.53±89.55 μm and 57.75±65.17 μm for the IOS group and the EIOS group, respectively (p=.001). The mean total angle trueness was found to be 0.53±0.28 degrees and 0.13±0.09 degrees for the IOS group and the EIOS group, respectively (p<.001). The mean total distance precision was found to be 76.73±87.26 μm and 59.57±70.44 μm for the IOS group and the EIOS group, respectively (p=.051). The mean total angle precision was found to be 0.32±0.24 degrees and 0.13±0.09 degrees for the IOS group and the EIOS group, respectively (p<.001). Conclusion: The accuracy of in vivo full-arch digital implant impressions was lower than in vitro and fell below the previously reported acceptable threshold.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Sezer, T., Esim, E., Yilmaz, E. (2025). Tam ark dijital implant ölçüsü için optik üçgenleştirme ve konfokal mikroskopi teknolojisini kullanan intraoral tarayıcının hassasiyeti: in vivo ve in vitro değerlendirme. Selcuk Dental Journal, Volume: 12 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1524111

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (31)

  1. Ul Huqh M, Abdullah J, Farook T, Jamayet N, Marya A. A current update on the use of intraoral scanners in dentistry-a review of literature. Int J Clin Dent 2022;15:503-519.
  2. Floriani F, Lopes GC, Cabrera A, Duarte W, Zoidis P, Oliveira D, et al. Linear accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions of implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Dent 2023;17:964-973.
  3. Joda T, Katsoulis J, Brägger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:946-954.
  4. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:109-113.
  5. Zhang YJ, Shi JY, Qian SJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: A systematic review. Int J Oral Implantol 2021;14:157-179.
  6. Miyoshi K, Tanaka S, Yokoyama S, Sanda M, Baba K. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31:74-83.
  7. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-128.
  8. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1360-1367.
  9. Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: Traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:1253-1262.
  10. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-472.
  11. Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont 2021;30:163-170.
  12. Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Ozcan M, Pradíes G. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont 2017;26:650-655.
  13. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:648-653.
  14. Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:1-21.
  15. Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:755-760.
  16. Resende CCD, Barbosa TAQ, Moura GF, do Nascimento Tavares L, Rizzante FAP, George FM, et al. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:294-299.
  17. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez‐Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e54-e64.
  18. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:1-14.
  19. Li Z, Huang R, Wu X, Chen Z, Huang B, Chen Z. Effect of Scan Pattern on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions with Two Intraoral Scanners. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:731-739.
  20. Sezer T. Kısmi Ark Dijital İmplant Ölçülerinde 2 Farklı Ağız İçi Tarayıcının Doğruluğu: Karşılaştırmalı Bir İn Vitro Çalışma. Selcuk Dental Journal 2024;11:137-141.
  21. Sezer T, Sezer AB. Effects of Operator Experience and Scanning Distance on Intraoral Scanner Accuracy. Necmettin Erbakan University Dental Journal 2024;3:36-44.
  22. Sezer T, Esim E, Yılmaz E. Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Different Scan Patterns for Full-Arch Digital Implant Impressions. J Oral Implantol 2024;50:426-430.
  23. Ochoa-López G, Revilla-León M, Gómez-Polo M. Influence of the ambient color lighting on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using two intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2024; doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.03.030.
  24. Ke Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun Y. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study. J Dent 2023;135:104561.
  25. Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Akulauskas M, Fehmer V, Sailer I, Jegelevicius D. In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32:1444-1454.
  26. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-478.
  27. Mandelli F, Zaetta A, Cucchi A, Mangano FG. Solid index impression protocol: a hybrid workflow for high accuracy and passive fit of full-arch implant-supported restorations. Int J Comput Dent 2020;23:161-181.
  28. Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, et al. Digital versus conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020;29:281-286.
  29. Papaspyridakos P, De Souza A, Finkelman M, Sicilia E, Gotsis S, Chen YW, et al. K. Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws. Journal of Prosthodontics 2023;32:325-330.
  30. Mandelli F, Keeling A, Gastaldi G, Ferrari M. Full-arch intraoral scanning: comparison of two different strategies and their accuracy outcomes. Journal of Osseointegration 2018;10:65-74.
  31. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, Van Der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-194.