Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

Patzelt, Sebastian B. M.; Emmanouilidi, Archontia; Stampf, Susanne; Strub, Jörg Rudolf; Att, Wael

doi:10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y

Cited by 360 publications

(352 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

316

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This can result in scanning artifacts, as seen in group BC 4.0. These artifacts might also be responsible for the very different results in the study published by Patzelt et al, who reported maximum deviations of up to 4.8 mm in group BC [15]. The different deviation patterns of the digital intraoral scanning systems can be attributed to the capturing techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The capture of the intraoral situation by means of 3D cameras made the immediate creation of a digital model and on-site production of restoration possible [13,14]. In recent years, the accuracy of these impression systems has improved to capture larger areas up to full-arch impressions with acceptable accuracy [15][16][17]. The advantage of digital impression is the time saved, especially when capturing smaller parts of the dental arch.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accuracy of dental impressions is particularly crucial in restorative dentistry [1,20,21]. To date, few investigations have addressed the impression accuracy of digital impressions in vivo [22], although several in vitro studies have described the accuracy of digital impression [15,16,23,24]. For accuracy measurements, trueness is difficult to measure in vivo.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The accuracy of digital impression systems is best assessed by superimposing the entire model surface [16,[32][33][34]. In this procedure, deviations between the impressions at each surface point are determined from computed 3D distances [15,16,23,34,35]. Based on earlier studies, the aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of several impression methods for generating quadrant dental impressions in a clinical in vivo situation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES Quadrant impressions are commonly used as alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI, and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90 1 0value.T hevaluesf oralltestgroupswerestatisticallycompared.RESU LT ST heprecisionrangedf rom18.8(CI) ABSTRACTObjectives: Quadrant impressions are a commonly used alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques Materials and Methods: Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90_10 value. The values for all test groups were statistically compared. Results: The precision ranged from 18.8 µm (CI) to 58.5 µm (T-Tray), with the highest precision in the CI, T-Def, BC4.0, TRC, and TRI groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly depending on the impression method. Impression systems with single-shot capture exhibited greater deviations at the tooth surface whereas high-frame-rate impression systems differed more in gingival areas. Triple tray impressions displayed higher local deviation at the occlusal contact areas of upper and lower jaw. Conclusions:Digital quadrant impression methods achieve a level of precision, comparable to conventional impression techniques. However there are significant differences in terms of absolute values and deviation pattern.Clinical Relevance: With all tested digital impression sys...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intraoral scanner performance is evaluated by measuring the accuracy and precision of the scanned image 6,9) . Evaluation of the precision and accuracy of oral scanners allows development of methods to reduce impression error in dental clinics and increase the fabrication success rates of customized prostheses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of 70% reduced inlay and 4-unit bridge models of International Standard (ISO 12836) assessing the accuracy of laboratory scanners to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanner. Four intraoral scanners (CS3500, Trios, Omnicam, and Bluecam) and one laboratory scanner (Ceramill MAP400) were used in this study. The height, depth, length, and angle of the models were measured from thirty scanned stereolithography (STL) images. There were no statistically significant mean deviations in distance accuracy and precision values of scanned images, except the angulation values of the inlay and 4-unit bridge models. The relative errors of inlay model and 4-unit bridge models quantifying the accuracy and precision of obtained mean deviations were less than 0.023 and 0.021, respectively. Thus, inlay and 4-unit bridge models suggested by this study is expected to be feasible tools for testing intraoral scanners.

show abstract