Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 2 Trueness (mean ± SD), in μm, for partially and fully edentulous maxilla, and p values testing the scanner by model interaction

From: Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Scanner Partially edentulous maxilla Fully edentulous maxilla p-value1
Mean trueness (± SD) Mean trueness (± SD)
CS 3600® 45.8 (±1.6) †, ʌ, * 60.6 (±11.7) † 0.047
Trios 3® 50.2 (±2.5) †, ‡, ° 67.2 (±6.9) ‡ 0.003
Cerec Omnicam® 58.8 (±1.6) ʌ, ‡ 66.4 (±3.9) # 0.009
True Definition® 61.4 (±3.0) *, ° 106.4 (±23.1) †,‡, # 0.012
  1. N = 5 scans for each scanner and model type
  2. The same symbol after SD indicates differences in trueness between scanner pairs (Tukey adjustment for multiple comparison). Minimum signicant difference across scanners 4.1 μm and 24.5 μm for partially and fully edentulous maxilla models, respectively
  3. 1 p-value testing of the interaction between scanner and model type (partially vs fully edentulous maxilla), from t-tests taking into account the heterogeneity of variances (Satterthwaite method). A p-value > 0.05 indicates no difference in scanner trueness according to model type
Back to article page