Objective: To evaluate, in vivo, trueness and precision of two OMNI system was 56.45 ± 7.80 μm, and 47.29 ± 5.47 μm for the intraoral scanners, CEREC Omnicam (OMNI) and CEREC Prime-PRIM system. Regarding precision, values from the OMNI sys scan (PRIM), compared to a conventional impression serving as tem were 42.47 ± 6.91 μm and from the PRIM system 21.86 ± a master model. Method and materials: Impressions were 4.40 μm. PRIM presented better results for both trueness performed for seven participants. For each participant, conven (P = .000) and precision (P = .000) when compared to OMNI. tional polyvinylsiloxane impression and digital impressions Conclusions: PRIM provided a better combination of trueness using two intraoral scanners, OMNI (software 4.6; CEREC ORTHO and precision than its predecessor OMNI. However, both PRIM Protocol) and PRIM (10 digital impressions per participant, per and OMNI performed acceptably when performing indirect res scanner), were made. Conventional impression was digitized torations, according to the current acceptable thresholds, con with a laboratory scanner (INEOS X5), and used as reference sidering both trueness and precision. Clinical implications: Full model. .STL files were superimposed with software (Geomagic arch impressions with Primescan presented more precision and Control X) using the tools Initial Alignment and Best Fit Align trueness than Omnicam; however, compared to previous re ment, and trueness and precision were evaluated. Statistical ported values of conventional impressions, they still presented evaluation was performed with Shapiro Wilk and Mann-lower accuracy. (Quintessence Int 2021;52:904–910; Whitney tests (P < .05). Results: Total mean trueness for the doi: 10.3290/j.qi.b1901329)
Nota bibliográficaPublisher Copyright:
© 2021 Quintessence Publishing Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.