Face scanners promise wide applications in medicine and dentistry, including facial recognition, capturing facial emotions, facial cosmetic planning and surgery, and maxillofacial rehabilitation. Higher accuracy improves the quality of the data recorded from the face scanner, which ultimately, will improve the outcome. Although there are various face scanners available on the market, there is no evidence of a suitable face scanner for practical applications. The aim of this in vitro study was to analyze the face scans obtained from four scanners; EinScan Pro (EP), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (EP+) (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), iPhone X (IPX) (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA), and to compare scans obtained from various scanners with the control (measured from Vernier caliper). This should help to identify the appropriate scanner for face scanning. A master face model was created and printed from polylactic acid using the resolution of 200 microns on x, y, and z axes and designed in Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The face models were 3D scanned with four scanners, five times, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations; EinScan Pro (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China) using Shining Software, iPhone X (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA) using Bellus3D Face Application (Bellus3D, version 1.6.2, Bellus3D, Inc. Campbell, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA). Scan data files were saved as stereolithography (STL) files for the measurements. From the STL files, digital face models are created in the computer using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). Various measurements were measured five times from the reference points in three axes (x, y, and z) using a digital Vernier caliper (VC) (Mitutoyo 150 mm Digital Caliper, Mitutoyo Co., Kanagawa, Japan), and the mean was calculated, which was used as the control. Measurements were measured on the digital face models of EP, EP+, IPX, and PM using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The descriptive statistics were done from SPSS version 20 (IBM Company, Chicago, USA). One-way ANOVA with post hoc using Scheffe was done to analyze the differences between the control and the scans (EP, EP+, IPX, and PM). The significance level was set at p = 0.05. EP+ showed the highest accuracy. EP showed medium accuracy and some lesser accuracy (accurate until 10 mm of length), but IPX and PM showed the least accuracy. EP+ showed accuracy in measuring the 2 mm of depth (diameter 6 mm). All other scanners (EP, IPX, and PM) showed less accuracy in measuring depth. Finally, the accuracy of an optical scan is dependent on the technology used by each scanner. It is recommended to use EP+ for face scanning.
There have been various developments in intraoral 3D scanning technology. This study is aimed at investigating the accuracy of 10 scanners developed from 2015 to 2020. A maxillary dental model with reference points was printed from Form 2 (FormLabs, Somerville, MA, USA). The model was scanned 5 times with each intraoral scanner (IOS); Trios 3 (normal and high-resolution mode); Trios 4 (normal and high-resolution mode) (3Shape Trios A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark); iTero Element, iTero 2, and iTero 5D Element (Align Technologies, San Jose, California, USA); Dental Wings (Dental Wings, Montreal QC, Canada); Panda 2 (Pengtum Technologies, Shanghai, China); Medit i500 (Medit Corp. Seoul, South Korea); Planmeca Emerald™ (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland); and Aoralscan (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China). After the scan, the 3D scanned stereolithography files were created. The various distances were measured five times in X , Y , Z , and X Y axes of various scans and with a vernier caliper (control) and from the Rhinoceros software. The data were analyzed using SPSS 18. Test for the normality of the various measurement data were done using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The trueness and precision of the measurements were compared among the various scans using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The significance was considered at P < 0.05 . The trueness of the intraoral scans was analyzed by comparing the measurements from the control. Precision was tested through the measurements of repeated scans. It showed that more the distance is less the accuracy for all scanners. In all studied scanners, the trueness varied but precision was favorably similar. Diagonal scanning showed less accuracy for all the scanners. Hence, when scanning the full arch, the dentist needs to take more caution and good scan pattern. Trios series showed the best scan results compared to other scanners.
Several capture techniques are used in intraoral optical scanners in the dental market, such as Triangulation (Cerec Omnicam, Dentsply Sirona), Activewave front sampling (3M ESPE) and confocal technology (iTero, Align). The accuracy of intraoral scanners is the most significant focal point for developers to research. This in-vitro study studied the accuracy of confocal scanners launched from 2015-2020 (Trios 3, Trios 4, iTero Element; 3Shape Trios A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark, and iTero Element2, and iTero Element5D; Align Technologies, San Jose, CA, USA). A 3D printing model modified from the American National Standard No. 132 was scanned five times each scanner. Both Trios3 and Trios4 were scanned using regular scan mode (N) and high-resolution mode (HR). All scanning methods followed the recommendations from the manufacturers. Then the digital models were exported and saved as STL files. Various measurements were determined in the digital model from each scan using Rhinoceros 3D Software (Rhino, Robert McNeel & Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). Measurements from the 3D printed model were used as control. All data were recorded in Microsoft Excel and then transferred to SPSS. Descriptive statistics were recorded. Multiple comparisons of various measurements were made among the different scanners and with the control using One-way ANOVA and post hoc using Sheffe (p < 0.01). The surface area in the X and Y axis ranged from 2-60 mm, while the depth (Z-axis) ranged from 2-8 mm. The Trios and iTero families showed similar accuracy. However, for the diagonal, the Trios series showed better results compared with the iTero series. Within the same brand, different versions showed no significant change regarding accuracy.
To evaluate the durability of machinable dental restorative materials, this study performed an experiment to evaluate the flexural strength and Weibull statistics of a machinable lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and a machinable composite resin after being thermocycled for certain cycles. A total of 40 bar-shape specimens of were prepared with the dimension of 20 mm × 4 mm × 2 mm, which were divided into four groups of 10 specimens. Ten specimens of machinable lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) and 10 specimens of machinable composite resin (Paradigm MZ 100, 3M ESPE, USA) were subjected to 3-point flexural strength test. Other 10 specimens of each material were thermocycled between water temperature of 5 and 55 °C for 10,000 cycles. After that, they were tested using 3-point flexural strength test. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparisons. Weibull analysis was performed to evaluate the reliability of the strength. Means of strength and their standard deviation were: thermocycled IPS e.max CAD 389.10 (50.75), non-thermocycled IPS e.max CAD 349.96 (38.34), thermocycled Paradigm MZ 100 157.51 (12.85), non-thermocycled Paradigm MZ 100 153.33 (19.97). Within each material group, there was no significant difference in flexural strength between thermocycled and non-thermocycled specimens. Considering the Weibull analysis, there was no statistical difference of Weibull modulus in all experimental groups. Within the limitation of this study, the results showed that there was no significant effect of themocycling on flexural strength and Weibull modulus of a machinable glass-ceramic and a machinable composite resin.
This study aimed to examine the shear bond strength between cobalt chromium alloy and autopolymerizing acrylic resin using experimental primers containing 5, 10, and 15 wt% of 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic anhydride or 1, 2, and 3 wt% of 3-methacryloxypropyl-trimethoxysilane comparison to 5 commercial primers (ML primers, Alloy primer, Metal/Zirconia primer, Monobond S, and Monobond plus). Sixty alloy specimens were sandblasted and treated with each primer before bonded with an acrylic resin. The control group was not primed. The shear bond strengths were tested and statistically compared. Specimens treated with commercial primers significantly increased the shear bond strength of acrylic resin to cobalt chromium alloy (p<0.05). The highest shear bond strength was found in the Alloy primer group. Among experimental group, using 10 wt% of 4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitic anhydride -or 2 wt% of 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane enhanced highest shear bond strength. The experimental and commercial primers in this study all improved bonding of acrylic resin to cobalt chromium alloy.
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.