Accuracy, time efficiency and operator preference in edentulous arch scanning: a preliminary report (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Osseointegration, 2021
Aim The present in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) in a completely edentulous arches and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy, also time efficiency and operator's difficulty perception related to IOS procedures. Materials and methods Twenty participants were enrolled for the digital scanning procedure of a maxillary edentulous metal model using an intraoral scanner, Aadva iOS100 (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan). Participants were divided in two groups according to their experience in intraoral scanning procedures: Inexpert (InE group) without any experience in dental scanning (n=10) and Experts (E group) composed of operators with at least 3 year of scanning experience with IOS (n=5). Five IOS procedures were repeated for each operator and exported as a correspondent Stereolithography (STL) file. The same model was scanned with a laboratory scanner (LSS) (D1000 3 Shape Copenaghen Denmark), obtaining an STL file of the model which has been used as a reference. Accuracy of IOS were evaluated using a surface adaptation software (Geomagic Design X). The time required for each scanning procedure, and the perceived difficulty level were recorded for all the participants. The data obtained about accuracy, scanning time and difficulty perceived were compared between the two groups using the T-test for independent samples. The same variables were also correlated with each other using the Pearson's coefficient. Results The highest trueness was observed for the scans provided by E participants. Precision ranged from 95,89 to 79,36 respectively in E and InE operators. For both trueness and precision there were significant differences between the two groups (p<0.05). Regarding scanning time, the more experienced operators were faster than inexpert ones with a significant difference (p<0.001). The two groups reported also differences in terms of difficulty perceived. Pearson's correlation reported for time scanning a significant correlation with trueness p<0.001 and precision p<0.05 and between difficulty perceived and trueness p<0.05. Conclusions Digital impressions accuracy was different in E and InE operators as well as the scanning times, that was correlated with both trueness and precision.
Complete-Arch Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study
Healthcare, 2021
The purpose of this study is to define the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (IOS) through the analysis of digital impressions of a complete dental arch model. Eight metal inserts were placed on the model as reference points and then it was scanned with a laboratory scanner in order to obtain the reference model. Subsequently, the reference model was scanned with four IOS (Carestream 3600, CEREC Omnicam, True Definition Scanner, Trios 3Shape). Linear measurements were traced on an STL file between the chosen reference points and divided into four categories: three-element mesiodistal, five-element mesiodistal, diagonal, and contralateral measurements. The digital reference values for the measurements were then compared with the values obtained from the scans to analyze the accuracy of the IOS using ANOVA. There were no statistically significant differences between the measurements of the digital scans obtained with the four IOS systems for any of the measurement groups tested.
Journal of Osseointegration, 2018
Aim According to recent literature, the accuracy of digital impression can be compared with traditional impressions for most indications. However, little is known about their suitability in digitizing edentulous jaws in view of mobile prosthetic rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to compare in vivo an intra-oral scanner with conventional impression in case of maxillary edentulous jaws. Material and methods Four (1 male, 3 female) subjects who had no previous experience with either conventional or digital impression participated in this study. Digital impression were taken using an intra-oral scanner. After that conventional impressions of maxillary edentulous jaws were taken with an irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Then all IOSs datasets were loaded in a three-dimensional evaluation software (3DReshaper 2017, Hexagon), where they were superimposed on the model obtained using conventional impression and compared. Results The mean value of difference between the t...
Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro
International journal of computerized dentistry, 2019
OBJECTIVE Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are widely used for obtaining digital dental models directly from the patient. Additionally, improvements in IOSs are made from generation to generation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of new and actual IOS devices for complete- and partial-arch dental impressions in an in vitro setup. MATERIALS AND METHODS A custom maxillary complete-arch cast with teeth made from feldspar ceramic material was used as the reference cast and digitized with a reference scanner (ATOS III Triple Scan MV60). One conventional impression technique using polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) material (President) served as the control (CO), and eight different IOS devices comprising different hardware and software configurations (TRn: Trios 3; TRi: Trios 3 insane; CS: Carestream Dental CS 3600; MD: Medit i500; iT: iTero Element 2; OC4: Cerec Omnicam 4.6.1; OC5: Cerec Omnicam 5.0.0; PS: Primescan) were used to take complete-arch impressions from the reference cast. T...
Trueness and Precision of Two Intraoral Scanners: A Comparative In Vitro Study
Scanning
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners used in the dental office. A molar fixed in a typodont was prepared for a ceramic onlay. The preparation was scanned using a high-resolution scanner (reference scanner) and saved as stereolithography (STL) format. The prepared resin molar was scanned again using the intraoral scanners, and all the scans were saved as well in STL format. All STL files were compared using metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Overlapping the meshes allowed the assessment of the scans in terms of trueness and precision. Based on the results of this study, the differences of trueness and precision between the intraoral scanners were minimal.
Statement of problem. The effect of additional reference objects on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners for partially and completely edentulous patients has not been investigated sufficiently. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of an additional reference object in the form of additional artificial landmarks on the trueness and precision of different intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous areas. Material and methods. Partially and completely edentulous models with 2 and 4 implants (BLT, RC, Institut Straumann AG), respectively, were used in the study. For the digital scan, scan bodies (CARES Mono Scanbody) were attached, and reference data obtained by using industrial scanners. Ten digital scans of the same model were made with each intraoral scanner: PRIMESCAN, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4, Carestream 3600, and Medit. Then, additional artificial landmarks were attached, and 10 more intraoral scans were made with each device. Computer-aided design files of the scan bodies were aligned to obtain 3-dimensional surfaces with reference and test scanners. Trueness and precision of distance, angulations, and vertical shift between scan bodies were estimated. The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon or Student 2-sample t test was applied to estimate statistically significant differences between groups (a=.05). Results. In the partially edentulous model, distance trueness mean ±standard deviation values ranged from −46.7 ±15.4 mm (TRIOS 3) to 392.1 ±314.3 mm (Medit) in models without additional artificial landmarks. When additional artificial landmarks were applied, trueness of distance mean ±standard deviation values ranged between −35 ±13 mm (TRIOS 4) and 117.7 ±232.3 mm (CARESTREAM). Trueness mean ±standard deviation values of angulation varied from −0.0 ±0.5 degrees (CARESTREAM) to 0.2 ±0.0 degrees (PRIMESCAN) without additional artificial landmarks and from 0.0 ±0.2 degrees (TRIOS 3) to 0.4 ±0.5 degrees (CARESTREAM) with additional artificial landmarks. Vertical shift trueness measurements varied from −108 ±47.1 mm (TRIOS 4) to 107.2 ±103.5 mm (Medit) without additional artificial landmarks and from −15.0 ±45.0 mm (CARESTREAM) to −86.9 ±42.1 mm (TRIOS 4) with additional artificial landmarks. The additional artificial landmark technique improved the trueness of all measured parameters for the 5 tested intraoral scanners. No statistically significant differences were found among models with or without additional artificial landmarks, except for Medit in all parameters and PRIMESCAN in angle measurements (P<.05). The best precision for distance was found with TRIOS 3 and with PRIMESCAN for angulation and vertical shift. Larger deviations were observed in the completely edentulous situation. The effect of additional artificial landmarks was limited when the accuracy parameters of digital scans were considered. Conclusions. Scans with and without additional artificial landmarks of partially edentulous conditions scanned by any of the intraoral scanners tested did not influence precision and trueness, except for Medit i500 in the distance and vertical shift parameters and CARESTREAM3600 in vertical shift. Precision and trueness of digital scans of completely edentulous areas were affected, except for Medit i500 for distance, PRIMESCAN and TRIOS 4 for angle, and all systems except TRIOS 4 for vertical shift precision.
Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2021
Statement of problem. Evidence for the accuracy of a recently introduced intraoral scanner is lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the trueness (validity) and precision (reliability) of 2 intraoral scanners by scanning a quadrant and a sextant. Material and methods. A maxillary typodont with plastic teeth made from a shade A3 polymethyl methacrylate was scanned (n=10) with each intraoral scanner (Planmeca Emerald and 3Shape TRIOS 3) to obtain sextant and quadrant scans. Control scans were made with an industrial optical scanner. The scans were analyzed with a 3D reverse engineering software program and an independent samples t test and general linear model 2-way analysis of variance (a=.05). Results. The 3Shape TRIOS 3 scanner showed no significant difference between the sextant and quadrant scans in trueness (P=.118) or in precision (P<.285). The Emerald scanner had statistically significant higher trueness for the sextant scan (P=.007). The 3Shape TRIOS 3 scanner had better performance in trueness and precision when compared with the Emerald scanner.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Objectives: The use of digital devices is strongly influencing the dental rehabilitation workflow both for single-crown rehabilitation and for full-arch prosthetic treatments. Methods: In this study, trueness was analyzed by overlapping the scan dataset made with Medit I-500 (by using two different tips and two different scan strategies) with the scan dataset made with lab scanning, and the values of the (90°–10°)/2 method were reported. Precision was evaluated by using the same values of trueness coming from the intra-group overlapping (scan dataset made with an IOS overlapped and compared to each other). Moreover, two different software programs of overlapping were used to calculate accuracy values. Results: The mean difference of trueness was 26.61 ± 5.07 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using a new design of the tip, 37.99 ± 4.94 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip, and 51.22 ± 6.57 µm with a new strate...
Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis
Scientific Reports
Intraoral three-dimensional imaging has gained great interest in dentistry as a mean to generate risk-free imprints of the oral cavity. Accurate intraoral models facilitate proper diagnosis, growth assessment, outcome evaluation, and 3D printing applications. Here, in an actual clinical setup on 12 subjects, we evaluate the trueness and precision of two widely used intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, 3Shape and CS 3600, Carestream), using an industrial scanner (Artec Space Spider) as a reference. Surface based matching was implemented using the iterative closest point algorithm (ICP). Trueness of the intraoral scans was analyzed by measuring their distance from the reference scan, in the upper buccal front area. Precision was tested through the distance of repeated scans regarding the whole dental arch, following superimpositions in the buccal front and in the whole dental arch area. TRIOS 3 displayed slightly higher precision (approximately 10 μm) compared to CS 3600, only after superimpo...