Influence of apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the …
페이지 정보

본문
Four groups were created: TRIOS 5, i700, iTero, and Primescan.
Results
Trueness discrepancies in the preparation area were found among the groups (P=.010) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P<.001). The −0.5 mm location obtained significantly worse trueness in the preparation area. The TRIOS 5 and i700 obtained the best trueness in the preparation area. Trueness discrepancies in the margin area were found among the groups (P=.002) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P=.004). The −0.5 mm location obtained the worst trueness in the margin area. The i700 and Primescan obtained the best trueness in the margin area. Precision discrepancies were found in the preparation area (P<.001). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best precision in the preparation area (P=.001). Precision discrepancies in the margin area were obtained (P<.001). The 1-mm subgroup obtained the best precision (P=.001).
관련링크
- 이전글Digital Workflow for the Restoration of the Vertical Dimension of Occlusion Evaluated by 3D Stereophotogrammetry 25.12.02
- 다음글A technique for gingival displacement before digital scanning 25.12.01
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.