Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Articles
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAD
Trios and Printed models
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="richmc2" data-source="post: 259848" data-attributes="member: 2391"><p>Welcome to the forums Surfer87. I would ask your lab, because a lot depends on their capabilities, experience and tolerances. I think many would accept a Trios scan for one or multiple implants, especially within one quadrant, while other labs require an impression on implant cases, especially as the case or the bridge gets larger. </p><p></p><p>In the early days of intra-oral scans, we saw some pretty distorted full arches. However, today most intraoral scanner manufacturers, supported by a number of studies, would tell you this is much less of a problem, especially with proper training. Also, while some labs work with high-precision very accurate printers, they don't all have the same equipment -- so even if the scan is perfect, the printer your lab is using may not be.</p><p></p><p>Inclusive Magazine published this successful full arch digital implant case study a few years ago, but I think Glidewell's policy is they still don't accept intra-oral scans for full arches: <a href="http://glidewelldental.com/education/inclusive-dental-implant-magazine/volume-4-issue-2/optical-impressions-and-full-arch-implant-restorations-a-case-study/" target="_blank">http://glidewelldental.com/education/inclusive-dental-implant-magazine/volume-4-issue-2/optical-impressions-and-full-arch-implant-restorations-a-case-study/</a></p><p></p><p>There are many academic studies supporting the accuracy of intraoral scans going back many years, but I think this is a pretty good recent study from last year, used 20 patients and iTero scanners: <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157713" target="_blank">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157713</a></p><p></p><p>The study above concluded that while the typical 0.1mm differences were acceptable for most indications. they also cautioned that they saw was 50-100% more variance/distortion in the mandibular posterior areas of the scans, so they recommended more care and/or rescanning in these areas. Also, the study didn't specifically cite implant cases.</p><p></p><p>Is "und" a typo, are you from Germany?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="richmc2, post: 259848, member: 2391"] Welcome to the forums Surfer87. I would ask your lab, because a lot depends on their capabilities, experience and tolerances. I think many would accept a Trios scan for one or multiple implants, especially within one quadrant, while other labs require an impression on implant cases, especially as the case or the bridge gets larger. In the early days of intra-oral scans, we saw some pretty distorted full arches. However, today most intraoral scanner manufacturers, supported by a number of studies, would tell you this is much less of a problem, especially with proper training. Also, while some labs work with high-precision very accurate printers, they don't all have the same equipment -- so even if the scan is perfect, the printer your lab is using may not be. Inclusive Magazine published this successful full arch digital implant case study a few years ago, but I think Glidewell's policy is they still don't accept intra-oral scans for full arches: [URL]http://glidewelldental.com/education/inclusive-dental-implant-magazine/volume-4-issue-2/optical-impressions-and-full-arch-implant-restorations-a-case-study/[/URL] There are many academic studies supporting the accuracy of intraoral scans going back many years, but I think this is a pretty good recent study from last year, used 20 patients and iTero scanners: [URL]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157713[/URL] The study above concluded that while the typical 0.1mm differences were acceptable for most indications. they also cautioned that they saw was 50-100% more variance/distortion in the mandibular posterior areas of the scans, so they recommended more care and/or rescanning in these areas. Also, the study didn't specifically cite implant cases. Is "und" a typo, are you from Germany? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who do we work for?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Dental-CAD
Trios and Printed models
Top
Bottom