Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence

Diker, Burcu; Tak, Önjen

doi:10.11607/ijp.6834

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Planmeca Emerald had the lowest score for accuracy (1 point from 10), but improvement could be observed because the new generation of the Planmeca IOS (Emerald S) had a better accuracy score (4.4 points from 10) than that of the previous generation of the device. Our accuracy results were similar to the results of other studies [ 75 – 77 ]. Our results and points confirmed the statement that the latest generations of IOSs have improved properties over the previous versions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters. Methods In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs. Results The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study. Conclusion The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dental literature has identified various factors that can influence the scanning accuracy of IOSs. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Here, by using mesh holes of different diameters, we investigated the impact of rescanning and stitching procedures on the digitization accuracy of an intraoral scanner for an ear model. Our analysis revealed that mesh hole rescanning affected the scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOS used, with larger mesh holes having a greater effect on trueness and smaller holes having a greater effect on precision.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 Several factors have been reported to influence the scanning accuracy of IOSs when used for digitizing dental structures. [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Similarly, these factors should be investigated for extraoral applications of IOSs to ensure the validity and accuracy of this trending approach. One of these recently reported factors is the cut-out rescan procedure, which has been shown to reduce intraoral scanning accuracy in both clinical and laboratory studies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of cut‐out rescan procedures on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner used for digitizing an ear model: An in vitro study

Ali

Hattori

Sumita

2022

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the rescanning of mesh holes of different diameters on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner (IOS) used to digitize an ear model. Materials and methods An ear model was digitized using an intraoral scanner (Medit i500) to obtain a reference mesh. A baseline experimental scan was created by editing a duplicate of the reference mesh using the cut‐out tool of the IOS software. Three equal groups were created based on the diameter of the cut‐out areas: 2 mm (G1), 5 mm (G2), and 8 mm (G3) (n = 15). The cut‐out areas were rescanned and a total of 45 digital files were exported. The discrepancy between the reference and the experimental digital scans was measured using the root mean square calculation (RMS). The data were analyzed by a Kruskal‐Wallis test followed by a post hoc Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction. Results The trueness values ranged from 19.53 to 27.13 µm. There were significant differences in the RMS error values among the groups tested (p < 0.001) and post hoc multiple comparisons showed significant differences between the G1 and G2 groups (p = 0.04), G1 and G3 groups (p < 0.001), and G2 and G3 groups (p = 0.004). Overall, the precision values ranged from 4.93 to 7.73 µm and significant differences in the RMS values were only found between the G1 and G2 groups (p = 0.014). Conclusions Mesh hole rescanning affected the scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOS tested. The larger the diameter of the mesh holes, the less the trueness of the IOS tested. The precision values seemed to be less affected compared with the trueness by the cut‐out and rescanning procedures.

show abstract

“…These studies ranged from simple digital impressions for fabrication of inlays, onlays, and single crowns to complex removable and fixed partial prostheses as well as more complicated digital impressions for implant-related restorations. [7][8][9][10][11][12] These findings were followed by a series of in vivo studies. [13][14][15] Although the use of intraoral scanners has usually been limited to the digitization of teeth, implants, and short-span edentulous areas for fabrication of fixed dental prostheses, recent studies have demonstrated the feasibility of digitally capturing edentulous jaws in both in vitro and in vivo conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review

Elbashti¹,

Molinero‐Mourelle²,

Aggarwal³

et al. 2022

Int J Maxillofac Prosthetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Few studies have focused on the feasibility and accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for maxillectomy defects, especially for extensive soft tissue defects. Using intraoral scanners alone might be feasible for producing maxillary obturator prostheses, albeit with some limitations. It seems logical to investigate this ambiguity. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to assessing the feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners (IOSs) to digitize maxillectomy defects. Materials and Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, and five prosthodontics journals were manually searched for English-language articles published as of December 2020 that assessed the feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to acquire digital impressions for maxillectomy defects. Results: Two in vitro studies, three clinical studies, six clinical reports, and three techniques were included (N=14). Aramany’s and Brown’s classifications were used to classify defects in twelve and one articles, respectively; the remaining article did not specify defect class. The 3M True definition IOS with Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), Computed tomography (CT), and/or optical scanners were used in both in vitro studies, mainly to evaluate accuracy. The Trios 3 scanner was used in nine studies as the main resource for data acquisition (75.0%), whereas the Trophy 3DI, Lava, and Cerec Omnicam scanners were used in three articles (25.0%). Four degrees of feasibility were identified: feasible (14.3%), feasible with limitations (28.6%), feasible with CBCT or CT (35.7%), and feasible with conventional impressions (21.4%). Accuracy was evaluated in four studies but was not mentioned in ten studies. Conclusion: The results revealed a low level of evidence for the feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects. Additional multicenter clinical studies are needed to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of digital workflow compared with the conventional approach.

show abstract

Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

Effect of cut‐out rescan procedures on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner used for digitizing an ear model: An in vitro study

Feasibility and accuracy of using intraoral scanners to digitize maxillectomy defects for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About