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]

Copyright of Universidade Estadual Paulista. Revista de Odontologia is the property of Universidade Estadual Paulista. Revista de Odontologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)