IADR 95th

67/75

-67-AadvaIOS0089 RCT on Confounders Affecting the Marginal Quality of Intraoral ScanningOral Presentation9:00 AM–9:15 AM Mar 22, 2017CC, Room 2022 Authors:Authors:Marco Ferrari (Presenter)School of Dental Medicine-Siena UniversityAndrew Keeling, School of DentistryFederico Mandelli, S. RaffaeleUniversityTim Joda, University of BernAbstract: Objectives: To assess the clinical performance of different intraoral optical scanning (IOS) Objectives: To assess the clinical performance of different intraoral optical scanning (IOS) devices evaluating the minimal distance to produce well-defined interproximalmargins between prepared abutment teeth / soft tissue (vertical-distance); and abutments / adjacent teeth (horizontal-distance).Methods: Thirty patients in need of an onlay/ inlay were included and randomly divided in three groups of ten (3x n=10) according to the used IOS for chair-side capturing: (A) GC-Europe (Aadva, Belgium); (B) True-Definition-TD (3M, USA); (C) Trios (3Shape, Denmark). All abutment teeth were prepared with supragingivallymargins. A total of ten scans from each group (A), (B), and (C), were obtained ad stored as STL-files.and (C), were obtained ad stored as STL-files.Each file was imported to the Exocadplatform, into a laboratory scanner (Aadva, Tokyo, Japan). The software measured the distance between each margin and the adjacent tooth interproximally, and the gingival tissue. The distance at which the detection of the margin started to become unclear was recorded for both vertical and horizontal distances. Data was processed statistically by one-way ANOVA (p>.05).This research was approved by the Ethical-Committee of the University of Siena.Results: Results: The number of scans rejected from the study due to obvious errors was 2 for D640, 3 for GC, 3 for TD; essentially were the first scanning shots made by the operator (20%, D640, 3 for GC, 3 for TD; essentially were the first scanning shots made by the operator (20%, 30%, 30%). No statistically significant differences were found among the three groups. The required distance, which could maintain a clear and visible margin was 0.5-0.6mm for all images, regardless of which IOS was used (Table 1; group with the same letter did not show any statistical significant difference).Horizontal Distance (in mm ±SD) Vertical Distance (in mm ±SD)D640 0,45a (0,04) A 0,59A (0,03) AGC 0,44a (0,0276) A 0,48A (0,02) ATD 0,44a (0,0623) A 0,46A (0,06) AConclusions: None of the tested IOS in this study were capable to record a clear and distortion-free digital impression when the cervical margin for a posterior partial crown was located at a distance less than 0.5-0.6mm from the Gingivaor from the interproximalneighbor. Under the experimental clinical conditions, all IOS performed similarly.Disclosure Statement:Disclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONEI have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by marcoferrariReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-67-abstract number 0089, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/329744, 2017