Effect of analysis software program on measured deviations in complete arch, implant-supported framework scans.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implementation of fabrication trueness analysis by using a recently introduced nonmetrology-grade freeware program may help clinicians and dental laboratory technicians in their routine practice. However, knowledge of the performance of this freeware program when compared with the International Organization for Standardization recommended metrology-grade analysis software program is limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of an analysis software program on measured deviations in the complete arch, implant-supported framework scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 20 complete arch, implant-supported frameworks were fabricated from a master standard tessellation language (STL) file from either polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or titanium (Ti) (n=10). All frameworks were then digitized by using different scanners to generate test STLs. All STL files were imported into a nonmetrology-grade freeware program (Medit Link) and a metrology-grade software program (Geomagic Control X) to measure the overall and marginal deviations of frameworks from the master STL file by using the root mean square (RMS) method. Data were analyzed by using the two 1-sided paired t test procedure, in which 50 µm was considered as the minimal clinically meaningful difference (α=.05).

RESULTS

When overall RMS values were considered, the nonmetrology-grade freeware program was not inferior to the metrology-grade software program (P<.05). When marginal RMS values were considered, the nonmetrology-grade freeware program was inferior to the metrology-grade software program only when PEEK frameworks were scanned with an E4 laboratory scanner (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the tested nonmetrology-grade freeware program resulted in overall deviation measurements similar to those when a metrology-grade software program was used. The freeware program was inferior when marginal deviations were analyzed on E4 scans of a PEEK framework, which was the only scanner-material pair that led to a significant difference, among the 15 pairs tested.