Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The goal of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral impressions obtained using the Trios 3Shape® and Carestream CS 3600™ scanners, as well as traditional analog impressions using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS), in comparison to a gold standard represented by a laboratory scanner in 51 dental models from 42 patients affected by partial edentulism who required at least two implants.
Researchers compare Trios 3Shape®, Carestream CS 3600™ and polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) to see if there is a different accuracy.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRIOS®-3Shape Group | Participants whose models were scanned using the TRIOS®-3Shape intraoral digital scanner. The deviation from the reference model was calculated to assess the accuracy of this technique. |
| |
| CS 3600® Carestream Group | Participants whose models were scanned using the CS 3600® Carestream Dental intraoral scanner. The deviation from the reference model was analyzed to evaluate the technique's precision. |
| |
| PVS Analog Impression Group | Participants whose impressions were taken using conventional polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) material. Cast models were scanned and compared to the reference to determine the accuracy of analog impressions. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| impression | Other | A Comparative Study of Digital Versus Analog Impressions |
| |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical and radiological evaluation of soft tissues and bone level in implant supported rehabilitations performed with Flapless Computer-Guided implantology. A prospective clinical study. | The statistical analyses were performed using AnalystSoft StatPlus®. Using GOM Inspect by Zeiss®, the mean deviation values from the reference file were calculated for each model. They were expressed in absolute terms. In our study, for each of the three test techniques (TRIOS®-3Shape, CS 3600® Carestream Dental, and PVS), the average of the values obtained from the superimpositions of 51 models was calculated, resulting in the mean deviation of each method from the reference. For data analysis, a one-way ANOVA test and a two-sample Z-test were applied, with a significance level (α) set at 0.05. These tests were used both to compare the mean distances and to assess the standard deviations of the deviations. Each technique was considered accurate if its mean deviation was less than 30 μm. | Patients included in this prospective study were recruited from 2017 to 2022 |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
The study population consisted of patients seeking implant treatment at the Implantology and Prosthodontics Department of the Giorgio Vogel Odontostomatological Clinic, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milan.
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinica Odontoiatrica Giorgio Vogel (Università degli studi di Milano) | Milan | Italy | Italy |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007291 | Inosine Monophosphate |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007292 | Inosine Nucleotides |
| D011685 | Purine Nucleotides |
| D011687 | Purines |
| D006574 | Heterocyclic Compounds, 2-Ring |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Digital impression |
| Other |
impression taken by intraoral scanner |
|
| D000072471 |
| Heterocyclic Compounds, Fused-Ring |
| D006571 | Heterocyclic Compounds |
| D009711 | Nucleotides |
| D009706 | Nucleic Acids, Nucleotides, and Nucleosides |
| D012265 | Ribonucleotides |