•  
  •  

Home > TJO > Vol. 36 (2024-2025) > Iss. 4 (2025)

 

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of 5 different intraoral scanning devices in maxillary cleft lip and palate (CLP) models. Material and Methods: One complete unilateral and one complete bilateral CLP model were each scanned by TRIOS E4, a laboratory scanner, and recorded in a standard tessellation language (STL) file as a reference scan. These models were then scanned using five different intraoral machines: TRIOS 4; Straumann Virtuo Vivo; Medit i500; Aoralscan 3; and Panda P2. Each CLP model was scanned 10 times, and the files were saved as test scans. The reference and test scans were then superimposed using a software program to compare the differences between them. Trueness was the mean of the positive and negative deviations resulting from each superimposition of the digital surfaces, with lower deviation indicating greater trueness. The test scan with the highest trueness value was then superimposed with the rest of the test scans to establish precision value deviations. The average and standard deviation of the trueness and precision figures underwent a normality test using Shapiro-Wilk test, while one-way ANOVA was employed to evaluate statistical differences. Results: All 5 intraoral scanners displayed high trueness and precision, although Panda P2’s values were found to be statistically significantly lower than those of the other four devices (PConclusions: Intraoral scanners can be used as an alternative for making nasoalveolar molding appliances for cleft lip and palate infants; furthermore, they reduce the risk involved in taking impressions for CLP. Their wider use in clinics should be encouraged.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Download

Share

COinS