Slimboyphat
Member
Full Member
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
Merging 2 scans together: 1 scan is from physical model scanned with medit t710 desktop. other is full arch IO scan of adjusted 4-13 temps by doc with 3shape.
I'm seeing discrepencies on 6-11 anterior margin alignment. doc didn't do full preps so the unprepped linguals of the anterior and untouched molars is what I use for exocad alignment.
It almost seems the anterior 6 being stretched to far buccally(.3mm) when comparing lingual margins and buccal gingiva. if I was to resize io temp scan to fit more accurately over anteriors preps then ruggae and posterior molars don't match well.
One thing that pops into mind is I don't believe the die stone/water was measured so I'm going to pour up new model and compare. But what's the general consensus on io scans vs physical model/desktop scan accuracy? is there often distortion on full arch io scan with a new 3shape scanner?
I'm seeing discrepencies on 6-11 anterior margin alignment. doc didn't do full preps so the unprepped linguals of the anterior and untouched molars is what I use for exocad alignment.
It almost seems the anterior 6 being stretched to far buccally(.3mm) when comparing lingual margins and buccal gingiva. if I was to resize io temp scan to fit more accurately over anteriors preps then ruggae and posterior molars don't match well.
One thing that pops into mind is I don't believe the die stone/water was measured so I'm going to pour up new model and compare. But what's the general consensus on io scans vs physical model/desktop scan accuracy? is there often distortion on full arch io scan with a new 3shape scanner?