The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator

  • Park, Hye-Nan (Department of Oral Anatomy, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lim, Young-Jun (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yi, Won-Jin (Department of Oral Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Han, Jung-Suk (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Pyo (Department of Oral Anatomy, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2017.04.25
  • Accepted : 2017.08.29
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to design an intraoral environment simulator and to assess the accuracy of two intraoral scanners using the simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A box-shaped intraoral environment simulator was designed to simulate two specific intraoral environments. The cast was scanned 10 times by Identica Blue (MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea), TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), and CS3500 (Carestream Dental, Georgia, USA) scanners in the two simulated groups. The distances between the left and right canines (D3), first molars (D6), second molars (D7), and the left canine and left second molar (D37) were measured. The distance data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS. The differences in intraoral environments were not statistically significant (P>.05). Between intraoral scanners, statistically significant differences (P<.05) were revealed by the Kruskal-Wallis test with regard to D3 and D6. CONCLUSION. No difference due to the intraoral environment was revealed. The simulator will contribute to the higher accuracy of intraoral scanners in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. Duret F, Blouin JL, Duret B. CAD-CAM in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;117:715-20. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0096
  2. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2014;54: 203-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
  3. Morris JB. CAD/CAM options in dental implant treatment planning. J Calif Dent Assoc 2010;38:333-6.
  4. Kachalia PR, Geissberger MJ. Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J Calif Dent Assoc 2010;38:323-30.
  5. 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
  6. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  7. 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
  8. TRIOS, 3Shape. 2016. Available from: http://dentalaxess.com/blog/work/3shape-trios/
  9. Carestream Dental. 2016. Available from: http://www.carestreamdental. com/ImagesFileShare/.sitecore.media_library. Files.Intraoral_Scanner.CS_3500.PROOF12318CS3500 BrochureUS85x11.pdf.
  10. Hack G, Patzelt S. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: An in-vitro investigation. ADA Prof Prod Rev 2015;10:1-5.
  11. Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:277-83. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4417
  12. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computeraided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc 2014; 145:1133-40. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.87
  13. Yoshida Y. The effect of environmental temperature and humidity on the adhesion of composite resins to the etched enamel surface. Jpn J Conserv Dent 1983;26:412-26.
  14. Spierings TA, Peters MC, Plasschaert AJ. Surface temperature of oral tissues. A review. J Biol Buccale 1984;12:91-9.
  15. Creed B, Kau CH, English JD, Xia JJ, Lee RP. A comparison of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models. Semin Orthod 2011;17:49-56. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010
  16. Saraiva LO, Aguiar TR, Costa L, Cavalcanti AN, Giannini M, Mathias P. Influence of intraoral temperature and relative humidity on the dentin bond strength: an in situ study. J Esthet Restor Dent 2015;27:92-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12098
  17. Besnault C, Attal JP. Influence of a simulated oral environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems. Am J Dent 2001;14:367-72.
  18. 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
  19. Hayashi K, Sachdeva AU, Saitoh S, Lee SP, Kubota T, Mizoguchi I. Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of new 3-dimensional scanning devices. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:619-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.021
  20. 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
  21. Identica hybrid. 2016. Available from: http://dentaldigital.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IdenticaHybrid_Manual.pdf.
  22. Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:755-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007
  23. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015;59:236-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002
  24. 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.

Cited by

  1. study vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.388
  2. The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra‐oral scanners used in dentistry pp.1098-2353, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23334
  3. A Comparative Study of the Fitness and Trueness of a Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Fabricated Using Two Digital Workflows vol.9, pp.14, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9142778
  4. A Comparative Study of Conventional versus Digital Impression Taking in Implant Dentistry- A Systematic Review vol.8, pp.44, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2019/729
  5. Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study vol.10, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010074
  6. Simple smartphone applications for superimposing 3D imagery in forensic dentistry vol.53, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v53.i1.p50-56
  7. A comparison of the marginal gaps of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by two different intraoral scanners vol.65, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12748
  8. Clinical Evaluation of Time Efficiency and Fit Accuracy of Lithium Disilicate Single Crowns between Conventional and Digital Impression vol.13, pp.23, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13235467
  9. Effect of the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch on the accuracy of scanners vol.12, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.6.361
  10. Effect of posterior span length on the trueness and precision of 3 intraoral digital scanners: A comparative 3-dimensional in vitro study vol.51, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5624/isd.20210076
  11. Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study vol.14, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14020365
  12. Comparison of Accuracy of Current Ten Intraoral Scanners vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2673040
  13. Design of a Single-Tooth Model and Its Application in Oral Scan System Assessment vol.2021, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8891396
  14. Comparison of Intaglio Surface Trueness of Interim Dental Crowns Fabricated with SLA 3D Printing, DLP 3D Printing, and Milling Technologies vol.9, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9080983
  15. Is There a Significant Difference in Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners for Short-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis? A Comparative In Vitro Study vol.11, pp.18, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188280
  16. Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study vol.126, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.10.004