(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the full arch scan accuracy (precision and trueness) of nine digital intra-oral scanners and four lab scanners. Previous studies have compared the accuracy of some intra-oral scanners, but as this is a field of quickly developing technologies, a more up-to-date study was needed to assess the capabilities of currently available models.; (2) Methods: The present in vitro study compared nine different intraoral scanners (Omnicam 4.6; Omnicam 5.1; Primescan; CS 3600; Trios 3; Trios 4; Runyes; i500 and DL206) as well as four lab light scanners (Einscan SE; 300e; E2 and Ineos X5) to investigate the accuracy of each scanner by examining the overall trueness and precision. Ten aligned and cut scans from each of the intra-oral and lab scanners in the in vitro study were brought into CloudCompare. A comparison was made with the master STL using the CloudCompare 3D analysis best-fit algorithm. The results were recorded along with individual standard deviation and a colorimetric map of the deviation across the surface of the STL mesh; a comparison was made to the master STL, quantified at specific points. ; (3) Results: In the present study, the Primescan had the best overall trueness (17.3 ± 4.9). Followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the Trios 4 (20.8 ± 6.2), i500 (25.2 ± 7.3), CS3600 (26.9 ± 15.9), Trios 3 (27.7 ± 6.8), Runyes (47.2 ± 5.4), Omnicam 5.1 (55.1 ± 9.5), Omnicam 4.6 (57.5 ± 3.2) and Launca DL206 (58.5 ± 22.0). Regarding the lab light scanners, the Ineos X5 had the best overall trueness with (0.0 ± 1.9). Followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the 3Shape E2 (3.6 ± 2.2), Up3D 300E (12.8 ± 2.7), and Einscan SE (14.9 ± 9.5); (4) Conclusions: This study confirms that all current generations of intra-oral digital scanners can capture a reliable, reproducible full arch scan in dentate patients. Out of the intra-oral scanners tested, no scanner produced results significantly similar in trueness to the Ineos X5. However, the Primescan was the only one to be statistically of a similar level of trueness to the 3Shape E2 lab scanner. All scanners in the study had mean trueness of under 60-micron deviation. While this study can compare the scanning accuracy of this sample in a dentate arch, the scanning of a fully edentulous arch is more challenging. The accuracy of these scanners in edentulous cases should be examined in further studies.
Introduction: The term 3D printing is commonly used to depict an assembling method whereby the final form of an object is the result of the addition of different layers to build the frame of an object. This procedure is more accurately portrayed as additive manufacturing and is likewise alluded to as fast prototyping. The term 3D printing, in any case, is generally new and has been an active part of current developments in Dentistry. Much publicity encompasses the evolution of 3D printing, which is hailed as an innovation that will perpetually change CAM manufacturing, including in the dental sector. This review is the first part in a 3D Printing series that looks at the history of 3D Printing, the technologies available and reviews the literature relating to the accuracy of these technologies. Conclusions: The recent advancement in digital dentistry to incorporate these tools has modernised dental practices by paving the way for computer-aided design (CAD) technology and rapid prototyping. The use of 3D printing has led to 3D digital models produced with intraoral scanners (IOS), which can be manipulated easily for diagnosis, treatment planning, mockups, and a multitude of other uses. Combining 3D Printing with a 3D intraoral scan eliminates the need for physical storage but makes it to retrieve a 3D models for use within all dental modalities.
Introduction: The current generation of 3D printers are lighter, cheaper, and smaller, making them more accessible to the chairside digital dentist than ever before. 3D printers in general in the industrial and chairside setting can work with various types of materials including, metals, ceramics, and polymers. Evidence presented in many studies show that an ideal material used for dental restorations is characterised by several properties related to durability, cost-effectiveness, and high performance. This review is the second part in a 3D Printing series that looks at the literature on material science and applications for these materials in 3D printing as well as a discussion on the potential further development and future evolution in 3D printing materials. Conclusions: Current materials in 3D printing provide a wide range of possibilities for providing more predictable workflows as well as improving efficiency through less wasteful additive manufacturing in CAD/CAM procedures. Incorporating a 3D printer and a digital workflow into a dental practice is challenging but the wide range of manufacturing options and materials available mean that the dentist should be well prepared to treat patients with a more predictable and cost effective treatment pathway. As 3D printing continues to become a commonplace addition to chair side dental clinics, the evolution of these materials, in particular reinforced PMMA, resin incorporating zirconia and glass reinforced polymers offer increased speed and improved aesthetics that will likely replace subtractive manufacturing milling machines for most procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.