The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

  • Park, Ji-Man (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital)
  • Received : 2016.02.05
  • Accepted : 2016.08.08
  • Published : 2016.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups. CONCLUSION. Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.

Keywords

References

  1. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.44
  2. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1461-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
  3. Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent 2014;42:677-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.016
  4. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Laser Eng 2014;54:203-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
  5. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4
  6. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
  7. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
  8. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17.
  9. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:914-20. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209
  10. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
  11. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-72.
  12. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010
  13. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012;7:e43312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043312
  14. Kim SR, Lee WS, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim JH. Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud. Dent Mater J 2015;34:835-40. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2014-313
  15. Atzeni E, Iuliano L, Minetola P, Salmi A. Proposal of an innovative benchmark for accuracy evaluation of dental crown manufacturing. Comput Biol Med 2012;42:548-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2012.01.009
  16. Paranhos LR, Lima CS, da Silva RH, Daruge Júnior E, Torres FC. Correlation between maxillary central incisor crown morphology and mandibular dental arch form in normal occlusion subjects. Braz Dent J 2012;23:149-53. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402012000200010
  17. Paranhos LR, Zaroni M, Carli JP, Okamoto R, Zogheib LV, Torres FC. Association between the facial type and morphology of the upper central incisor in normal occlusion subjects. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15:29-33. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1183
  18. Martin CB, Chalmers EV, McIntyre GT, Cochrane H, Mossey PA. Orthodontic scanners: what's available? J Orthod 2015;42:136-43. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001
  19. Sannino G, Gloria F, Schiavetti R, Ottria L, Barlattani A. Dental Wings CAD/CAM system precision: an internal and marginal fit sperimental analisys. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2009;2:11-20.
  20. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28.
  21. Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB. Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:161-3. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3014
  22. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  23. An S, Kim S, Choi H, Lee JH, Moon HS. Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1171-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.024
  24. Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization-a laboratory study. Dent Mater 2014;30:400-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006
  25. Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow-the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:2119-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0923-5
  26. Sturdevant JR, Bayne SC, Heymann HO. Margin gap size of ceramic inlays using second-generation CAD/CAM equipment. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:206-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1999.tb00400.x
  27. Rupf S, Berger H, Buchter A, Harth V, Ong MF, Hannig M. Exposure of patient and dental staff to fine and ultrafine particles from scanning spray. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:823-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1300-8

Cited by

  1. Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Scanners: Are They the Better Option? vol.4, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-017-0145-z
  2. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature vol.17, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
  3. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison vol.18, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3
  4. Accuracy of Three Digitization Methods for the Dental Arch with Various Tooth Preparation Designs: An In Vitro Study pp.1059941X, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12998
  5. study vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.388
  6. 다양한 CAD/CAM 방식으로 제작한 금속하부구조물 간의 변연 및 내면 적합도 비교 연구 vol.57, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.3.211
  7. Workflow description of additively manufactured clear silicone indexes for injected provisional restorations: A novel technique vol.31, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12464
  8. A Comparative Study of the Fitness and Trueness of a Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Fabricated Using Two Digital Workflows vol.9, pp.14, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142778
  9. Precision of the virtual occlusal record vol.89, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2319/092018-684.1
  10. Using the surgical guide for impression-free digital bite registration in the edentulous maxilla—a technical note vol.5, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-019-0172-8
  11. Approach to the Design and Manufacturing of Prosthetic Dental Restorations According to the Rules of Industry 4.0 vol.9, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1520/mpc20200020
  12. An Experimental Strategy for Capturing the Margins of Prepared Single Teeth with an Intraoral Scanner: A Prospective Clinical Study on 30 Patients vol.17, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020392
  13. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner vol.29, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13135
  14. Dentistry 4.0 Concept in the Design and Manufacturing of Prosthetic Dental Restorations vol.8, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8050525
  15. A comparison of the marginal gaps of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by two different intraoral scanners vol.65, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12748
  16. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Lighting Conditions on the Mesh Quality of an Intraoral Scanner vol.29, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13205
  17. Assessment of Compatibility between Various Intraoral Scanners and 3D Printers through an Accuracy Analysis of 3D Printed Models vol.13, pp.19, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13194419
  18. Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence vol.12, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.299
  19. Evaluation of the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners for endocrown digital impression: An in vitro study vol.58, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2020.58.4.282
  20. Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners vol.29, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13202
  21. In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type vol.65, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.jpr_d_20_00169
  22. In-vitro evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated using digital scanning technologies vol.13, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.6.373
  23. Three‐Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions vol.30, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13264
  24. Effect of different arch widths on the accuracy of three intraoral scanners vol.13, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.4.205
  25. Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: A systematic review vol.126, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.008
  26. Trueness of intraoral scanners in digitizing specific locations at the margin and intaglio surfaces of intracoronal preparations vol.126, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.019
  27. Evaluating the Effect of Ambient and Scanning Lights on the Trueness of the Intraoral Scanner vol.30, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13341
  28. Pros and Cons of CAD/CAM Technology for Infection Prevention in Dental Settings during COVID-19 Outbreak vol.22, pp.1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/s22010049