PURPOSE: . The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different palatal vault configurations on the accuracy and scan speed of intraoral scans (IO) of completely edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . Three different virtual models of a completely edentulous maxillary arch with different palatal vault heights- Cl I moderate (U-shaped), Cl II deep (steep) and Cl III shallow (flat)-were digitally designed using CAD software (Meshmixer; Autodesk, USA) and 3D-printed using SLA-based 3D-printer (XFAB; DWS, Italy) (n = 30; 10 specimens per group). Each model was scanned using intraoral scanner (Trios 3; 3Shape™, Denmark). Scanning time was recorded for all samples. Scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) were evaluated using digital subtraction technique using Geomagic Control X v2020 (Geomagic; 3DSystems, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to detect differences in scanning time, trueness and precision among the test groups. Statistical significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: . The scan process could not be completed for Class II group and manufacturer’s recommended technique had to be modified. ANOVA revealed no statistically significant difference in trueness and precision values among the test groups (P =.959 and P =.658, respectively). Deep palatal vault (Cl II) showed significantly longer scan time compared to Cl I and III. CONCLUSION . The selection of scan protocol in complex cases such as deep palatal vault is of utmost importance. The modified, adopted longer path scan protocol of deep vault cases resulted in increased scan time when compared to the other two groups.

Purpose: Machine learning (ML) is a strong candidate for making accurate predictions, as we can use large amount of data with powerful computational algorithms. We developed a ML based model to predict survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) using data from two independent datasets. Materials and Methods: A total of 364,316 and 1,572 CRC patients were included from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and a Korean dataset, respectively. As SEER combines data from 18 cancer registries, internal validation was done using 18-Fold-Cross-Validation then external validation was performed by testing the trained model on the Korean dataset. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivity and positive predictive values. Results: Clinicopathological characteristics were significantly different between the two datasets and the SEER showed a significant lower 5-year survival rate compared to the Korean dataset (60.1% vs. 75.3%, p < 0.001). The ML-based model using the Light gradient boosting algorithm achieved a better performance in predicting 5-year-survival compared to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (AUROC, 0.804 vs. 0.736; p < 0.001). The most important features which influenced model performance were age, number of examined lymph nodes, and tumor size. Sensitivity and positive predictive values of predicting 5-year-survival for classes including dead or alive were reported as 68.14%, 77.51% and 49.88%, 88.1% respectively in the validation set. Survival probability can be checked using the web-based survival predictor (http://colorectalcancer.pythonanywhere.com). Conclusion ML-based model achieved a much better performance compared to staging in individualized estimation of survival of patients with CRC.

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the influence of palatal vault forms on accuracy and speed of intraoral (IO) scans in completely edentulous cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the palatal vault form, participants were divided into three equal groups (n = 10 each); Class I: moderate;Class II: deep; Class III: flat palatal vault. A reference model was created for each patient using polyvinylsiloxane impression material. The poured models were digitized using an extraoral scanner. The resultant data were imported as a solid CAD file into 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018; Gom GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) and aligned using the software’s coordinate system to determine its X, Y, and Z axes. Five digital impressions (DIs) of maxilla were captured for each patient using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the resultant Standard Tessellation Language (STL) scan files served as test models. Trueness was evaluated by calculating arithmetic mean deviation (AMD) of the vault area between reference and test files while precision was evaluated by calculating AMD between captured scans to measure repeatability of scan acquisition. The scan time taken for each participant was also recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in trueness and precision among the groups (P = .806 and .950, respectively). Average scan time for Class I and III palatal vaults was 1 min 13 seconds and 1 min 37 seconds, respectively, while class II deep palatal vaults showed the highest scan time of 5 mins. CONCLUSION Palatal vault form in edentulous cases has an influence on scan time. However, it does not have a substantial impact on the accuracy of the acquired scans.

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the influence of palatal vault forms on accuracy and speed of intraoral (IO) scans in completely edentulous cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the palatal vault form, participants were divided into three equal groups (n = 10 each); Class I: moderate;Class II: deep; Class III: flat palatal vault. A reference model was created for each patient using polyvinylsiloxane impression material. The poured models were digitized using an extraoral scanner. The resultant data were imported as a solid CAD file into 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018; Gom GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) and aligned using the software’s coordinate system to determine its X, Y, and Z axes. Five digital impressions (DIs) of maxilla were captured for each patient using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the resultant Standard Tessellation Language (STL) scan files served as test models. Trueness was evaluated by calculating arithmetic mean deviation (AMD) of the vault area between reference and test files while precision was evaluated by calculating AMD between captured scans to measure repeatability of scan acquisition. The scan time taken for each participant was also recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in trueness and precision among the groups (P = .806 and .950, respectively). Average scan time for Class I and III palatal vaults was 1 min 13 seconds and 1 min 37 seconds, respectively, while class II deep palatal vaults showed the highest scan time of 5 mins. CONCLUSION Palatal vault form in edentulous cases has an influence on scan time. However, it does not have a substantial impact on the accuracy of the acquired scans.

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the influence of palatal vault forms on accuracy and speed of intraoral (IO) scans in completely edentulous cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the palatal vault form, participants were divided into three equal groups (n = 10 each); Class I: moderate;Class II: deep; Class III: flat palatal vault. A reference model was created for each patient using polyvinylsiloxane impression material. The poured models were digitized using an extraoral scanner. The resultant data were imported as a solid CAD file into 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018; Gom GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) and aligned using the software’s coordinate system to determine its X, Y, and Z axes. Five digital impressions (DIs) of maxilla were captured for each patient using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the resultant Standard Tessellation Language (STL) scan files served as test models. Trueness was evaluated by calculating arithmetic mean deviation (AMD) of the vault area between reference and test files while precision was evaluated by calculating AMD between captured scans to measure repeatability of scan acquisition. The scan time taken for each participant was also recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in trueness and precision among the groups (P = .806 and .950, respectively). Average scan time for Class I and III palatal vaults was 1 min 13 seconds and 1 min 37 seconds, respectively, while class II deep palatal vaults showed the highest scan time of 5 mins. CONCLUSION Palatal vault form in edentulous cases has an influence on scan time. However, it does not have a substantial impact on the accuracy of the acquired scans.

PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the influence of palatal vault forms on accuracy and speed of intraoral (IO) scans in completely edentulous cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the palatal vault form, participants were divided into three equal groups (n = 10 each); Class I: moderate;Class II: deep; Class III: flat palatal vault. A reference model was created for each patient using polyvinylsiloxane impression material. The poured models were digitized using an extraoral scanner. The resultant data were imported as a solid CAD file into 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018; Gom GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) and aligned using the software’s coordinate system to determine its X, Y, and Z axes. Five digital impressions (DIs) of maxilla were captured for each patient using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the resultant Standard Tessellation Language (STL) scan files served as test models. Trueness was evaluated by calculating arithmetic mean deviation (AMD) of the vault area between reference and test files while precision was evaluated by calculating AMD between captured scans to measure repeatability of scan acquisition. The scan time taken for each participant was also recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in trueness and precision among the groups (P = .806 and .950, respectively). Average scan time for Class I and III palatal vaults was 1 min 13 seconds and 1 min 37 seconds, respectively, while class II deep palatal vaults showed the highest scan time of 5 mins. CONCLUSION Palatal vault form in edentulous cases has an influence on scan time. However, it does not have a substantial impact on the accuracy of the acquired scans.