Influence of material, number, and scan body's bevel positioning on image acquisition stage: in vitro study

• Ano de defesa: 2024
• Autor(a) principal: Peixoto, Ana Carolina Candelas
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso embargado
• Idioma: eng
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Uberlândia; Brasil; Programa de Pós-graduação em Odontologia
• Palavras-chave em Português: Scanbody; Dental Implant; CAD/CAM; Intraoral Scanner; Implante Dentário,; Scanner Intraoral; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA::MATERIAIS ODONTOLOGICOS; Odontologia; Implantes dentários; Sistemas de varredura; Sistemas tutoriais inteligentes; ODS::ODS 9. Indústria, Inovação e infraestrutura - Construir infraestrutura resiliente, promover a industrialização inclusiva e sustentável, e fomentar a inovação.
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufu.br/handle/123456789/42107; http://doi.org/10.14393/ufu.di.2024.476

Digital dentistry is increasingly becoming a reality in dental practices through CAI/CAD/CAM technology (computer-aided impressioning (CAI), computer-aided design (CAD), and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)), aiming for speed and reduced discomfort in case resolution. In implantology, the scanning of Intraoral Scanbodies (ISBs) facilitates the transfer of implant positioning to the virtual cast. Further studies are needed to identify factors that can interfere with the success and longevity of this treatment. The present study aimed to evaluate the influence of material, number, and bevel positioning of ISBs during the image acquisition stage. For this purpose, a typodont with absence of elements 34, 35, and 36 was used, and ISBs for Neodent Multi-Unit were installed, varying the material (PEEK or titanium), number (two or three), and bevel positioning (aligned or misaligned). Each group was scanned once with the InEos X5 laboratory scanner (InEos X5, Sirona) and ten times with the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (Virtuo Vivo, Neodent) (N=10). The STL files were analyzed for trueness using laboratory scans as a reference. The analyses were conducted in Geomagic Control X software, allowing for the overlay, alignment, and 3D comparison of the files. Data were analyzed both in isolation for each group and for the interaction between them, using factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), followed by a generalized linear model (GLM) with the bootstrap technique of 1000 resamplings, and Sidak’s post-hoc test to verify if the interactions are significant and impact the discrepancy measures. Only one group showed no significant difference: among the materials, titanium showed better results and less discrepancy; using 2 ISBs resulted in better outcomes compared to 3 ISBs, and the bevel positioning, whether aligned or misaligned, was not significant. Therefore, both the material and the number of ISBs can influence the accuracy of image acquisition; however, the positioning of their bevels may not influence it.