Accuracy of intraoral scanners in different complete arch scan patterns

Pattamavilai, Sakaorat; Ongthiemsak, Chakree

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.026

Cited by 38 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the accuracy of the IOS and, in particular, the Trios ® 3, Pattamavilai and Ongthiemsak [ 18 ] and Amornvit et al [ 19 ] showed that this scanner produces an accurate and true representation of the real-life intraoral situation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scanning as an Alternative to Evaluate the Accuracy of Dental Implant Placements in Partially Edentate Situations: A Prospective Clinical Case Series

Hooft

Kielenstijn

Liebregts

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: For years, Cone-Beam Computed Tomography’s (CBCT) have been the golden standard to evaluate implant placement accuracy. By validating Intraoral Scans (IOS) as an alternative to determine implant placement accuracy, a second CBCT could be avoided. (2) Methods: Using dynamic guided implant surgery, 23 implants were placed in 16 partially edentate patients. Preoperatively, both CBCT and IOS (Trios® 3) were obtained and subsequently imported into DTX Studio™ planning software to determine the ideal implant location. A CBCT scan and an IOS including scan abutments were acquired immediately after placement. Both postoperative CBCT and postoperative IOS were used to compare the achieved implant position with the planned implant position and were projected and analyzed using the Implant Position Orthogonal Projection (IPOP) method. (3) Results: Mean differences between the CBCT and IOS methods on the mesio–distal plane were 0.09 mm (p = 0.419) at the tip, 0.01 mm (p = 0.910) at the shoulder, −0.55° (p = 0.273) in angulation, and 0.2 mm (p = 0.280) in implant depth. Mean differences between both methods on the bucco-lingual/bucco-palatal plane were 0.25 mm (p = 0.000) at the tip, 0.12 mm (p = 0.011) at the shoulder, −0.81° (p = 0.002) in angulation, and 0.17 mm (p = 0.372) in implant depth. A statistical analysis was performed using a paired t-test. All mesiodistal deviations between the two methods showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). Buccolingual/buccopalatal deviations showed no significant difference in implant depth deviation. However, significant differences were found at the tip, shoulder, and angulation (p < 0.05). These values are of minimal clinical significance. (4) Conclusions: This study supports the hypothesis that a postoperative IOS is a valid alternative for determining implant placement accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scanning as an Alternative to Evaluate the Accuracy of Dental Implant Placements in Partially Edentate Situations: A Prospective Clinical Case Series

Hooft

Kielenstijn

Liebregts

et al. 2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sophisticated measuring instruments (such as Vernier calipers) are typically used to obtain measurements from the master model 40 . Some studies further optimized the experiment using a measuring instrument with extremely high accuracy (such as a coordinate measuring machine) to obtain measurements from the master model to be used as the gold standard 90,101 . The accuracy of the scanner was obtained by statistical analysis of the data of the master and virtual models.…”

Section: Methods For Evaluating the Accuracy Of 3d Imaging Devicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…40 Some studies further optimized the experiment using a measuring instrument with extremely high accuracy (such as a coordinate measuring machine) to obtain measurements from the master model to be used as the gold standard. 90,101 The accuracy of the scanner was obtained by statistical analysis of the data of the master and virtual models. Ajioka et al 102 studied ball abutments to assess the accuracy of optical impressions by using this measurement method.…”

Section: Intraoral and Extraoral Scannersmentioning

confidence: 99%

An overview of three‐dimensional imaging devices in dentistry

Hou

Zhao

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To review four types of three‐dimensional imaging devices: intraoral scanners, extraoral scanners, cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT), and facial scanners, in terms of their development, technologies, advantages, disadvantages, accuracy, influencing factors, and applications in dentistry. Methods PubMed (National Library of Medicine) and Google Scholar databases were searched. Additionally, the scanner manufacturers' websites were accessed to obtain relevant data. Four authors independently selected the articles, books, and websites. To exclude duplicates and scrutinize the data, they were uploaded to Mendeley Data. In total, 135 articles, two books, and 17 websites were included. Results Research and clinical practice have shown that oral and facial scanners and CBCT can be used widely in various areas of dentistry with high accuracy. Conclusion Although further advancement of these devices is desirable, there is no doubt that digital technology represents the future of dentistry. Furthermore, the combined use of different devices may bring dentistry into a new era. These four devices will play a significant role in clinical utility with high accuracy. The combined use of these devices should be explored further. Clinical significance The four devices will play a significant role in clinical use with high accuracy. The combined use of these devices should be explored further.

show abstract

“…58,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] Therefore, if the scanning pattern is changed, the accuracy of the intraoral digital scan varies. 58,[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72] Generally, it is recommended to follow the scanning pattern recommended by the manufacturer of the IOS selected.…”

Section: Scanning Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scanning pattern or digitizing sequence performed when acquiring an intraoral digital scan significantly influenced the scanning accuracy of IOSs 58,63–72 . Therefore, if the scanning pattern is changed, the accuracy of the intraoral digital scan varies 58,63–72 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

Revilla‐León

Kois

2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To describe the factors related to the operator skills and decisions that influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision making when using IOSs and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans. Overview Each IOS system is limited by the hardware and software characteristics of the selected device. The operator decisions that can influence the accuracy of IOSs include the scanning technology and system selection, scanning head size, calibration, scanning distance, exposure of the IOS to ambient temperature changes, ambient humidity, ambient lighting conditions, operator experience, scanning pattern, extension of the scan, cutting off, rescanning, and overlapping procedures. Conclusions The knowledge and understanding of the operator factors that impact scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs and for successfully integrating IOSs in daily practices. Clinical Significance Operator skills and clinical decisions significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing operator factors for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

show abstract

Accuracy of intraoral scanners in different complete arch scan patterns

Cited by 38 publications

References 35 publications

Intraoral Scanning as an Alternative to Evaluate the Accuracy of Dental Implant Placements in Partially Edentate Situations: A Prospective Clinical Case Series

Intraoral Scanning as an Alternative to Evaluate the Accuracy of Dental Implant Placements in Partially Edentate Situations: A Prospective Clinical Case Series

An overview of three‐dimensional imaging devices in dentistry

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About