Comparative Evaluation of Digitization of Diagnostic Dental Cast (Plaster) Models Using Different Scanning Technologies

Abstract

Rapidly developing digital dental technologies have substantially simplified the documentation of plaster dental models. The large variety of available scanners with varying degrees of accuracy and cost, however, makes the purchase decision difficult. This study assessed the digitization accuracy of a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and an intraoral scanner (IOS), as compared to a desktop optical scanner (OS). Ten plaster dental models were digitized three times (n = 30) with each scanner. The generated STL files were cross-compared, and the RMS values were calculated. Conclusions were drawn about the accuracy with respect to precision and trueness levels. The precision of the CBCT scanner was similar to the desktop OS reference, which both had a median deviation of 0.04 mm. The IOS had statistically significantly higher deviation compared to the reference OS, with a median deviation of 0.18 mm. The trueness values of the CBCT was also better than that of IOS—median differences of 0.14 and 0.17 mm, respectively. We conclude that the tested CBCT scanner is a highly accurate and user-friendly scanner for model digitization, and therefore a valuable alternative to the OS. The tested IOS was generally of lower accuracy, but it can still be used for plaster dental model digitization.

Primary Evaluation of Shape Recovery of Orthodontic Aligners Fabricated from Shape Memory Polymer (A Typodont Study)

“…Additionally, the method tested in the present investigation is easily linkable with CAD/CAM systems, which registered a constantly increasing use in many fields of dentistry, such as restorative dentistry, prosthodontics, and orthodontics. CAD/CAM technology allows a completely digital workflow, from impression to final framework, with clinical reliability [ 31 ] and good patients feedback [ 32 ].…”

Impact of radiographic field‐of‐view volume on alignment accuracy during virtual implant planning: A noninterventional retrospective pilot study

“…These tomographic images are exported in DICOM format (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) (Jacobs & Quirynen, 2014) and are superimposed with optically acquired surface datasets (Kernen et al, 2016). The latter ones are obtained with intraoral scanners or by stone cast digitization in the dental laboratory and are usually exported as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) data (Emara et al, 2020; Papaspyridakos et al, 2016).…”

Integration and Application of Multimodal Measurement Techniques: Relevance of Photogrammetry to Orthodontics

“…Other depth-acquisition techniques include: depth from defocus, depth from focus, pulse ranging, time-of-flight, phase-based, or continuous wave ranging methods [ 1 ], in addition to confocal, active wave sampling [ 2 ]. Types of 3D scanners relevant for orthodontic applications include (this list is by no means exhaustive): for face scanning: Vectra, 3DiD, 3dMD [ 3 ], EinScan Pro and Planmeca [ 4 ], Konica Minolta 910, and Polhemus [ 5 ]; desktop scanners for scanning plaster dental models: Konica Minolta VI-9i and Imetric laser scanner [ 6 ]; intraoral scanners: Trios, iTero Element, Dental Wings, Panda 2, Medit i500, Planmeca, and Aoralscan [ 7 ]. …”

“…desktop scanners for scanning plaster dental models: Konica Minolta VI-9i and Imetric laser scanner [ 6 ];…”

“…Apparently, this is due to small registration errors accumulating over the series of single field-of-view local scans. In this respect, a desktop scanner examining a plaster or resin cast of teeth has the advantage of viewing the entire arch in a single view, without the need for multiple registration—as confirmed in comparative studies [ 6 ].…”