Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Song, Jihu; Kim, Min Ji

doi:10.1155/2020/2920804

Cited by 33 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cadaver tissue in our study was removed from the body make the scanning easier for the operator, and it was free of saliva, but it kept wet by water. In a study [47], where artificial saliva was applied on the model surface, the intraoral scans were distorted considerably compared to other in vitro studies [6,24], probably due to the bubbles formed on the surface. Another limit of our method could be that although the mean surface deviation for the local best fit applied at a single tooth was very low (mean = 18 μm, standard deviation = 13 μm, n = 574), in some case (e.g., a Planscan case) it went up to 146 μm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgrounds: Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems. Methods: Digital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model. Results: The deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53 ± 2 μm) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156 ± 8 μm) and CS 3600 (365 ± 29 μm), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531 ± 26 μm), Element 2 (246 ± 11 μm), Emerald (317 ± 13 μm), Omnicam (174 ± 11 μm), Planscan (903 ± 49 μm). Conclusions: The physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ceramic bracket was more accurate than the resin, which seems to be because the polycrystalline ceramic bracket used in this study has less light reflectivity. Song et al [ 19 ] stated that the largest discrepancy was in the order of resin > metal > ceramic bracket. In this study, it is thought that the discrepancy of the metal bracket was relatively small because the size of the bracket was smaller than that of the resin or ceramic bracket.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study on the effect of the material surface on the scan error of IOS, Kurz et al [ 18 ] reported that the error was greater in the resin and metal groups than in the ceramic. Song et al [ 19 ] applied artificial saliva to the maxillary model with non-bracket, ceramic, metal, and resin brackets and scanned them with CS3600, i500, Trios 3, Omnicam IOSs. In this study, the mean and the maximum discrepancy value were evaluated, and it was confirmed that the discrepancy of the dentition with the resin and metal bracket was greater than that of the ceramic bracket.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Shin

Yul

et al. 2021

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accurate expression of bracket prescription is important for successful orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital scan images of brackets produced by four intraoral scanners (IOSs) when scanning the surface of the dental model attached with different bracket materials. Brackets made from stainless steel, polycrystalline alumina, composite, and composite/stainless steel slot were considered, which have been scanned from four different IOSs (Primescan, Trios, CS3600, and i500). SEM images were used as references. Each bracket axis was set in the reference scan image, and the axis was set identically by superimposing with the IOS image, and then only the brackets were divided and analyzed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences. The difference between the manufacturer’s nominal torque and bracket slot base angle was 0.39 in SEM, 1.96 in Primescan, 2.04 in Trios, and 5.21 in CS3600 (p < 0.001). The parallelism, which is the difference between the upper and lower angles of the slot wall, was 0.48 in SEM, 7.00 in Primescan, 5.52 in Trios, 6.34 in CS3600, and 23.74 in i500 (p < 0.001). This study evaluated the accuracy of the bracket only, and it must be admitted that there is some error in recognizing slots through scanning in general.

show abstract

“…The ceramic bracket was more accurate than the resin, which seems to be because the polycrystalline ceramic bracket used in this study has less light reflectivity. Song et al [19] stated that the largest discrepancy was in the order of resin> metal> ceramic bracket. In this study, it is thought that the discrepancy of metal bracket was relatively small because the size of the bracket was smaller than that of the resin or ceramic bracket.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a study on the effect of the material surface on the scan error of IOS, Kurz et al [18] reported that the error was greater in the resin and metal groups than in the ceramic. Song et al [19] applied artificial saliva to the maxillary model with non-bracket, ceramic, metal, and resin brackets and scanned with CS3600, i500, Trios3, Omnicam IOSs. In this study, the mean and the maximum discrepancy value were evaluated, and it was confirmed that the discrepancy of the dentition with resin and metal bracket was greater than that of the ceramic bracket.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners

Shin¹,

Yu²,

Yul³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate expression of bracket prescription is important for successful orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital scan images of brackets produced by four different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in terms of the height, position, and angle of the bracket slot when scanning the surface of dental model attached with bracket materials made from different composition of materials. Brackets made from stainless steel, polycrystalline alumina, composite and composite/stainless steel slot were considered, which have been scanned from 4 different IOSs (Primescan, Trios, CS3600 and i500). SEM images were used as references. Each bracket axis was set in the reference scan image, and the axis was set identically by superimposing with the IOS image, and then only the brackets were divided and analyzed. The difference between the manufacturer's nominal torque and bracket slot base angle was 0.39 in SEM, 1.96 in Primescan, 2.04 in Trios, and 5.21 in CS3600 (P <0.001). The parallelism, which is the difference between the upper and lower angles of the slot wall, was 0.55 in SEM, 7.55 in Primescan, 6.74 in Trios3, 6.59 in CS3600, and 24.95 in i500 (p <0.001). This study evaluated the accuracy of the bracket only and it must be admitted that there is some error in recognizing slots through scanning in general

show abstract

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Cited by 33 publications

References 30 publications

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About