Comparative analysis on measuring performances of dental intraoral and extraoral optical 3D digitization systems

Trifković, Branka; Budak, Igor; Todorović, Aleksandar; Vukelić, Djordje; Lazić, Vesna; Puškar, Tatjana

doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2013.08.051

Cited by 38 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15 In addition, errors resulting from the reflection and scattering of light that might have occurred during scanning with the white-and blue-light scanners were also challenging to explain; these errors may have been caused by the program. 3,16 Therefore, further studies are required to overcome these limitations, to discover means of reducing error in the 3D superimposing method, and to improve the quality of the impression body scans obtained with white-and blue-light scanners. Table compares mean ± SD discrepancies (mm) in abutment tooth impressions digitized with white-light to digitized with blue-light scanners (n = 10 per tooth type).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, low repeatability of the scans obtained from the intraoral scanner, which can be attributed to the presence of saliva coupled with the complexities of the oral cavity, has been identified as a problem. [2][3][4][5][6] To compensate for this disadvantage, scanning from an impression of the patient's oral structures has been suggested. Such methods are both cost and time effective because the step of replicating the model is omitted.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners

Jeon

Choi

Kim

et al. 2015

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners

Jeon

Choi

Kim

et al. 2015

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, such data aids dentists in the planning and evaluation of treatment, and improves treatment outcome 15) . 3-D superimpositional software, which enables an extremely precise comparison and analysis of irregular and geometric shapes, has been utilized to evaluate such data 9,12,[16][17][18][19] . The analysis software used in this study (PowerINSPECT) allows measurements to be obtained on STL files and triangle models, used in each part and product, as well as rapid prototyping.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the digitization of alginate impressions by analyzing differences between the scan data of two types of impressions (alginate and rubber) taken from the master die and the scan data for the master die. The master die and impressions were digitized using a dental laser scanner (7 series, Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada). The crown portion of the abutment teeth in the digital data of 20 impressions was divided into three regions: cervical surface, middle surface, and occlusal surface. An independent t-test showed a significant difference (p<0.05) in the mean difference for each experimental group (alginate and rubber). One-way ANOVA and Tukey's honest significant difference test revealed a significant difference (p<0.05) among the three regions in the rubber impression. The results of this study also carefully suggest the possibility of digitization of alginate impressions in the future.

show abstract

“…19 A number of studies [20][21][22][23][24][25][26] have demonstrated that intraoral scanning can lead to fabrication of short-span prostheses with equal or even improved marginal and internal fit compared to conventional impressions. However, studies [27][28][29][30][31] have also shown that for more extensive restorations, conventional impressions, followed by extra-oral scanning, are preferable and more accurate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques

Malik¹,

Rodriguez²,

Weisbloom³

et al. 2018

Int J Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: The objective of this study was to compare the precision and trueness of full-arch impressions using either a conventional polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) material or 2 intraoral optical scanners. Methods: Full arch impressions were obtained of a reference model using addition silicone impression material (Aquasil Ultra; Dentsply Caulk, Delaware, USA) and two optical scanners (Trios, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark and CEREC Omnicam, Sirona, Wals, Austria). Surface matching software (Geomagic® Control™, 3D Systems©, Rock Hill, SC, USA) was used to superimpose the scans within groups in order to determine the mean deviations (μm) between the scans. The overall mean precision and trueness for each group was calculated and compared statistically using one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc Bonferroni (trueness) and Games-Howell (precision) tests (IBM© SPSS® ver 24, IBM UK Ltd, Portsmouth, England). Qualitative analysis was also carried out from three-dimensional maps of differences between scans. Results: Mean and standard deviations (SD) of precision for conventional, Trios and Omnicam groups were 21.7 (±5.4), 49.9 (±18.3), and 36.5 (±11.12), respectively. Mean and standard deviations (SD) for trueness were 24.3 (±5.7), 87.1 (±7.9), and 80.3 (±12.1) respectively. The conventional impression showed statistically significant improved mean precision (P<.006) and mean trueness (P<.001) compared to both digital impression procedures. There were no statistically significant differences in precision (P=0.153) or trueness (P=0.757) between the digital impressions. The qualitative analysis revealed local deviations along the palatal surfaces of the molars and incisal edges of the anterior teeth in the order of <100μm. Conclusion: Conventional full-arch PVS impressions exhibited improved mean accuracy compared to 2 direct optical scanners. No significant differences were found between the two digital impression methods.

show abstract

Comparative analysis on measuring performances of dental intraoral and extraoral optical 3D digitization systems

Cited by 38 publications

References 16 publications

Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners

Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners

Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud

Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About