Search

Aim: To analyze the accuracy of extraoral systems (Ceramill Map400+, AutoScan-DS200+, and E2) in full implantprosthetic rehabilitation three-dimensionally. Methods: A metallic edentulous maxilla with four implants was digitalized by a contact scanner (MDX-40 - Roland, control) and used as a control image to compare with other images generated by three laboratory scanners (10 samples per group). Letters identified all the four components: A and D angled 45º, and B and C parallel. The BioCAD software exported the images (.STL) to compare and verify deviations of the analogs on the X, Y, and Z axes. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test and the two-way ANOVA on ranks with a post hoc Tukey test analyzed the data with 5% significance. Results: No statistical differences were observed in the accuracy between the extraoral scanners (p=0.0806). However, when analyzing only the components, component D was more accurate when scanned with Ceramill Map400+ compared with AutoScan DS200+ (p<0.001) and with E2 (p=0.002). Conclusions: All extraoral systems assessed showed digitalization accuracy but with more deviations in angled implants. The Ceramill Map400+ scanner showed the best results for the digital impression of a complete arch. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]