![]() ![]() Finally, the distance and angles between simulated implants were measured in each group, and compared to those of the reference model, to evaluate local trueness. ![]() General trueness and precision of any scanner were compared by model type, through an ANOVA model including scanner, model and their interaction. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagics 2012®), where intraoral scans were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate general trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to evaluate general precision. Five scans were taken for each model, using each different intraoral scanner. The models were digitized with an industrial scanner (IScan D104I®) used as a reference, and with four intraoral scanners (Trios® CS 3500® Zfx Intrascan® Planscan®). Two stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cylinders screwed on.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |