A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Accuracy of Intra-Oral Scans Compared to Conventional Impression in Vitro. | LitMetric

Aim: The purpose of the present study was to assess the accuracy of intra-oral scans and conventional impression measured at various points on a single tooth preparation.

Methods: Ten conventional silicone impressions, and ten intra oral-scans using eight different digital intra oral digital scanners were taken of a prepared master tooth. The conventional impressions were directly digitised using a laboratory scanner. Each scan/impression was superimposed on a high-accuracy digital model of the prepared master tooth. For each superimposition, the deviation from the prepared master tooth was measured at six points on four two-dimensional cross-sections. Data was analysed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results: Most intra oral scanners had lower accuracy at the preparation margin compared to smooth surfaces. When only conventional impression and the latest intra oral scanners of various manufacturers are considered, the mean discrepancy at the preparation margin was 50μm (SD 16) for conventional impression, 15μm (SD 4) for trios 3, 26μm (SD 4) for LAVA TDS, 29μm (SD 7) for CEREC Omnicam, 30μm (SD 6) for CS 3600 and 64μm (SD 7) for GC aadva. The increased accuracy of trios 3 was statistically significant (p<0.05).

Conclusions: At the preparation margin, Trios 3 performed significantly better than conventional impression and the other intra oral scanners. LAVA TDS, CEREC Omnicam and CS3600 showed similar accuracy at the margin, yet better than conventional impression and GC Aadva.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1308/205016819827601491DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

conventional impression
16
intra oral
12
prepared master
12
master tooth
12
accuracy intra-oral
8
intra-oral scans
8
measured points
8
oral scanners
8
preparation margin
8
conventional
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!