Comparison of the Accuracy of Optical Impression Systems in Three Different Clinical Situations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2017
Optical impressions can offer many advantages over conventional impressions because they do not undergo dimensional change and are not susceptible to damage from handling; need less armamentarium (no need for trays, adhesives, and dispensers); provide immediate on-screen feedback; they increase the scope of planning and diagnosis; permit easier communication with the dental laboratory with no cross infection risk; and allow easier duplication, storage, and retrievability. Furthermore, optical impressions allow chairside fabrication of definitive restorations in a single appointment. 1 However, optical impressions have some limitations, such as the size of the scanning wand, which can create problems for patients with limited mouth opening, the procedure learning curve, and the difficulty in scanning subgingival margins. 1 Although optical impressions have advantages, their adoption in daily dental practice and the shift toward a complete digital workflow are contingent upon the ability of complete arch optical impressions to replicate oral and dental structures at a Supported by 2014 Ralph Phillips Student Research Award from the Academy of Operative Dentistry (to M.A.A.). Cerec Omnicam provided by Dentsply Sirona USA. Materials provided by Kettenbach USA and Dentsply USA.
Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression: A review
IP innovative publication pvt. ltd, 2019
Introduction: Intraoral scanners are used for capturing the direct optical impressions in dentistry. The development of 3D technology and the rising trend of increased use of intra-oral scanners in dental office routine lead to the need to assess the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions Aim: The aim of this review was to assess the accuracy of the different intraoral scanners and the effect of different variables on the accuracy outcome. Materials and Methods: An electronic search using Pubmed with specific keywords were used to obtain potential references for the review. Results: Total 21 articles were selected according to the inclusion criteria of which 18 were in vitro studies and 3 were in vivo, 15 articles had studied full arch scanning. Conclusion: The studies indicated variable outcome of the different intraoral scanner systems. While the accuracy of intraoral scanner systems appears to be promising and comparable to conventional methods, they are still vulnerable to inaccuracies.
Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques
The International journal of prosthodontics
To compare the accuracy (ie, precision and trueness) of full-arch impressions fabricated using either a conventional polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) material or one of two intraoral optical scanners. Full-arch impressions of a reference model were obtained using addition silicone impression material (Aquasil Ultra; Dentsply Caulk) and two optical scanners (Trios, 3Shape, and CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Surface matching software (Geomagic Control, 3D Systems) was used to superimpose the scans within groups to determine the mean deviations in precision and trueness (μm) between the scans, which were calculated for each group and compared statistically using one-way analysis of variance with post hoc Bonferroni (trueness) and Games-Howell (precision) tests (IBM SPSS ver 24, IBM UK). Qualitative analysis was also carried out from three-dimensional maps of differences between scans. Means and standard deviations (SD) of deviations in precision for conventional, Trios, and Omnicam groups were 21.7 (...
Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking Using Intraoral Scanner Versus the Conventional Technique
Frontiers in Dentistry, 2021
Objectives: Intraoral scanners have shown promising results when used as an adjunct or alternative to conventional impression techniques. This study compared the accuracy of digital impression taking using an intraoral scanner versus the conventional technique. Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, a typodont molar tooth was prepared as the standard model and scanned by TRIOS intraoral scanner. Ten digital impressions were fabricated as such and intraoral scans were sent to the manufacturers. In the conventional method, using addition silicone impression material, a stone die was fabricated. Using a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing scanner, the die was scanned, and the data were transferred to the software. After the fabrication of frameworks, the replica technique was used. The replicas’ thickness (indicative of the gap between the framework and the model and the accuracy of impression taking) was 12 points. The data were analyzed using stude...
Purpose: To quantify the impact of ambient lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner (IOS) when maxillary complete-arch and maxillary right quadrant digital scans were performed in a patient. Material and Methods: One complete dentate patient was selected. A complete maxillary arch vinyl polysiloxane impression was obtained and poured using Type IV dental stone. The working cast was digitized using a laboratory scanner (E4 Dental Scanner; 3Shape) and the reference standard tessellation language (STL file) was obtained. Two groups were created based on the extension of the maxillary digital scans performed namely complete-arch (CA group) and right quadrant (RQ) groups. The CA and RQ digital scans of the patient were performed using an IOS (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) with 4 lighting conditions chair light (CL), 10 000 lux, room light (RL), 1003 lux, natural light (NL), 500 lux, and no light (ZL), 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group at each ambient light settings (CL, RL, NL, and ZL) were consecutively obtained (n = 10). The STL R file was used to analyze the discrepancy between the digitized working cast and digital scans using MeshLab software. Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and pair-wise comparison were used to analyze the data. Results: Significant difference in the trueness and precision values were found across different lighting conditions where RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error compared with the other lighting conditions tested followed by CL, NL, and ZL. On the CA group, RL condition also obtained the best accuracy values, CL and NL conditions performed closely and under ZL condition the mean error presented the highest values. On the RQ group, CL condition presented the lowest absolute error when compared with the other lighting conditions evaluated. A pair-wise multicomparison showed no significant difference between NL and ZL conditions. In all groups, the standard deviation was higher than the mean errors from the control mesh, indicating that the relative precision was low. Conclusions: Light conditions significantly influenced on the scanning accuracy of the IOS evaluated. RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error value of the digital scans performed. The extension of the digital scan was a scanning accuracy influencing factor. The higher the extension of the digital scan performed, the lower the accuracy values obtained. Furthermore, ambient light scanning conditions influenced differently depending on the extension of the digital scans made. Intraoral scanner (IOS) devices provide a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression making for tooth and implant-supported crowns and short-span fixed dental prostheses. 1-13 Different factors influence scanning accuracy including technology of the IOS selected, 1,10-23 calibration, 23 handling and learning, 24,25 scanning conditions, 26,27 surface
Ex vivo digital comparison of four impression techniques using an industrial laser scanner
Stomatology Edu Journal, 2022
The aim of the study was to compare different impression techniques used for fixed prosthodontics. Methodology A master cast with prepared abutments was created from polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA). A high-resolution industrial scanner was used to create a virtual reference model. Four different impressions were made, three with polyvinyl-siloxane (PVS) (n = 10 for each): one-step putty-wash (1SPW), two-step putty-wash prepared with an escape channel (2SPW-Ch), two-step putty-wash with a polyethylene spacer foil (2SPW-Fo), and one with polyether monophasic technique (MP) from the PMMA model and digitized with an industrial scanner. The stereolithographic (STL) files of the impressions (n = 40) were exported. Each file was compared to the reference using the Geomagic Verify software. Six points were assigned to enable virtual calliper measurement of tooth diameters and distances of varying sizes within the arch. Results In the case of die diameters, the deviation from the mould ranged from 31.84 to 180.64 µm. At the stump diameter level, the MP and 1SPW techniques showed significantly more minor differences than the 2SPW-Ch, and the MP was significantly more accurate than the 2SPW-Fo. At medium distance, the deviation ranged from 42.74 to 136.47 µm. Therefore, MP was found to be significantly more accurate than 2SPW-Ch. When examining the long distance, the difference was between 162.62 and 348.85 µm. The MP and 1SPW impression techniques proved significantly more accurate than the 2SPW-Ch technique for long distances. Conclusions With both simultaneous techniques, significantly more true results were achieved than with the two-step techniques.
Digital Impressions -A Review of Latest Technology in Dentistry
To learn about current technology trends in the field of dentistry. To learn about the use of digital impression machines for taking impressions. To learn about process of taking the impressions. To learn about the shortcomings of digital impressions. DATA: In the article we will know more about digital impressions by learning in detail about the three different scanner systems in use and also comparing them. We will also learn about cons of digital impressions. Also information about the whole process of taking digital impressions is provided in the article. SOURCES: References from various articles have been taken in the article. All of the sources have been stated under references at the end. Wikipedia and Google have also been used extensively for various references. STUDY SELECTION: The main purpose of this article is to know more about the latest technology in dentistry. Impression taking has been an integral part of dentistry. With the introduction of digital impression the whole process of taking traditional impressions which involved a lot of complex steps like tray selection, material mixing, loading, tray placement and removal has been removed and the process of taking digital impressions is lot easier and faster. So to know more about the digital impression this study is selected. CONCLUSION: Dentistry is expanding every day, the field of impressions has been quickly growing with the help of advancement in technology and introduction of digital impression scanner systems.
Effect of techniques, trays and materials on accuracy of impressions clinically made
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP, 2019
Introduction Making accurate and dimensionally stable impressions to duplicate oral conditions and tooth morphology is an essential step of prosthetic dentistry for fabricating well-fitted indirect restorations and, consequently, ensure the longevity and success of the treatment. Several authors describe pros and cons of different impression techniques, although there is no unanimity among them about the best one. Objective This study evaluated casts’ accuracy made by different impression techniques, trays and materials. Material and method 10 patients were selected and 20 impressions from teeth #13 to #16 were performed using single-step (SS) and two-step techniques, made with metal stock and customized acrylic resin partial trays, vinyl polysiloxane and condensation silicone rubbers. Type IV gypsum was used to pour the casts. Three photographs of each patient (baseline), as their respective gypsum casts, were taken, measured in their interested buccal surface area. Comparisons of ...
A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions
BMC Oral Health
Background: Intraoral scanners are devices for capturing digital impressions in dentistry. Until now, several in vitro studies have assessed the trueness of digital impressions, but in vivo studies are missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to introduce a new method to assess trueness of intraoral scanners and digital impressions in an in vivo clinical setup. Methods: A digital impression using an intraoral scanner (Trios® 3 Cart wired, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and a conventional alginate impression (Cavex Impressional®, Cavex, Haarlem, the Netherlands) as clinical reference were made for two patients assigned for full mouth extraction. A total of 30 teeth were collected upon surgery after impressions making. The gypsum model created from conventional impression and extracted teeth were then scanned in a lab scanner (Activity 885®, SmartOptics, Bochum, Germany). Digital model of the intraoral scanner (DM) , digital model of the conventional gypsum cast (CM) and those of the extracted natural teeth (NT) were imported to a reverse engineering software (3-matic®, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) in which the three models were registered then DM and CM were compared to their corresponding teeth in NT by distance map calculations. Results: DM had statistically insignificant better trueness when compared to CM for total dataset (p = 0.15), statistically insignificant better trueness for CM when mandibular arches analyzed alone (p = 0.56), while a significantly better DM trueness (p = 0.013) was found when only maxillary arches were compared. Conclusions: Our results show that digital impression technique is clinically as good as or better than the current reference standard for study models of orthognathic surgery patients.