Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system considering clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model with 6 implants (27, 25, 22, 12, 15, and 17) was fitted with polyether ether ketone scan bodies. Implant no. 25 was placed with 30° mesial angulation and no. 15 with 30° distal angulation in relation to the vertical plane (y axis). Implant no. 22 was placed at 2 mm and no. 12 placed 4 mm below the gingiva. Experienced (n = 2) and inexperienced (n = 2) operators performed the scanning (CEREC system). Measurements involved 5 distances (27-25, 27-22, 27-12, 27-15, 27-17). Measurements with coordinated measuring machine of the master model acted as the true values. RESULTS: The experience of the operator affected the accuracy. Operator 3 (inexperienced) performed better than the rest. Angulation and implant depth did not affect the accuracy results. The position of the camera affected the accuracy of the system. The first scanned quadrant had significantly smaller error, -17 ± 26.3 μm, than the second quadrant, -116 ± 103 μm. CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions with CEREC Bluecam system can be a feasible alternative for challenging cases where angulation and depth of the implants are present. The accuracy of the CEREC system for the first scanned quadrant is high, and it decreases when completing a full arch.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giménez et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: