Objective To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of intraoral instruments used for shade determination compared to visual shade selection (VSS). Materials and Methods A total of 20 subjects and 10 observers, balanced by gender, participated in the study. Observers performed VSS of the upper right central incisor from each subject. Instrumental shade determination of the same teeth was performed using a spectrophotometer (Easyshade V) and intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3 and Trios 4). Vita Classical shade nomenclature was used to record the shade designation for all instruments and VSS. The accuracy of the instruments was determined by comparing the instrument readings with the most frequent visual shade selected. The percentage of accuracy was obtained by comparing the number of agreements with the number of comparisons. The percentage of repeatability was obtained by comparing the number of repeated shades with the number of shade measurements in each group. Accuracy was compared using Cochran Q test followed by pairwise comparisons using multiple McNemar's tests with Bonferroni correction. Repeatability of the instruments was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Results Omnicam showed a significant lower accuracy than the other instruments (p < 0.05). No statistical difference on repeatability was found among the different instruments (p > 0.05). It was not found any statistical differences for VSS accuracy among the observers (p = 0.437) and between genders (p = 0.867). Conclusion Instrumental repeatability (≥75%) and similar accuracy between the best performed instruments (69%–77.5%) and the observers performance (65%–90%) supports the use of high‐performance instruments for dental shade determination. Clinical Significance Most instruments (Easyshade V, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 4) showed similar accuracy performance to observers in the VSS.
PurposeThe aim was to assess the effect of span lengths and total occlusal convergence (TOC) on the accuracy of intraoral scanners .Materials and methodsTwo typodont acrylic teeth models were prepared to receive fixed dental prostheses with three different span lengths. Span 1: between maxillary canines; span 2: between maxillary second premolars; and span 3: between maxillary second molars. In the first model, prepared teeth had a TOC of 12°, whereas, in the second model, teeth had a TOC of 20°. Each model was scanned 10 times using 4 different intraoral scanners (Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 4, and Medit i500). The STL files from the scans were compared to the reference models (trueness) and within each test group (precision) using a 3D comparison software. Data were then statistically analyzed.ResultsRegarding trueness, no significant differences were found among Primescan (32.58 ± 13.08), Trios 4 (32.33 ± 12.19), and Medit i500 (32.26 ± 9.57). However, all showed significantly better trueness than Omnicam (35.70 ± 8.35) (p < 0.001). The highest values were found in scans between the second molars (47.42 ± 3.94), followed by scans between second premolars (28.42 ± 3.78), and the highest trueness was found in scans between the canines (23.80 ± 3.85). For TOC, 12° had a significantly higher value than 20° (p < 0.001). Regarding precision, the highest values were found with Omnicam (29.84 ± 3.89), followed by Medit i500 (28.04 ± 2.94), then Trios 4 (25.64 ± 3.11), and Primescan (24.69 ± 5.25). The highest values and least precision were found in scans between the second molars (28.97 ± 5.27) and scans between second premolars (27.59 ± 3.97), whereas the highest precision was found in scans between the canines (24.60 ± 2.04). For TOC, 12° had significantly higher values than 20° (p < 0.001).ConclusionsIntraoral scans are directly affected by scanner type, TOC, and scan spans. All tested scanners showed clinically acceptable results even for long‐span restorations.
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.