Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience

Lim, Jung Hwa; Park, Ji‐Man; Kim, Min Ji; Heo, Seong Joo; Myung, Ji Yun

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002

Cited by 186 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

151

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Each IOS scan file was imported then superimposed onto the reference model, using an Initial Alignment and a Best Fit Alignment , considering only the segmented typodont teeth (Figure ). The software's Best Fit Alignment function aligns the test file, and reference file using an iterative closest point algorithm, which has become a standard method for aligning digital 3D files …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reference standard scan data were first trimmed, using the metrology software, to eliminate excess data points on the typodont base, leaving only the teeth to be aligned using an iterative closest point algorithm, which has become a standard method for aligning digital 3D files. [30][31][32][33] Once aligned, the 3D Compare function allowed substrate regions to be isolated for deviation calculation of all POI of a specific material.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners

Dutton

Ludlow

Mennito

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This in vitro study compares the newest generation of intraoral scanners to their older counterparts, and tests whether material substrates affect the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS). Material and methods A custom model, used as the reference standard, was fabricated with teeth composed of different dental materials. The reference standard scan was obtained using a three‐dimensional (3D) optical scanner, the ATOS III. Experimental scans were obtained using eight different IOS, operated by experienced clinicians, using the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy. A comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. Results For all scanners tested, except Trios3, the substrate does influence the trueness and precision of the scan. Furthermore, differences exist when comparing the same substrate across different scanners with some of the latest generation scanners clearly leaping ahead of the older generation regarding both trueness and precision. Conclusions Substrate type affects the trueness and precision of a scan. Active Triangulation scanners are more sensitive to substrate differences than their parallel confocal counterparts. Some scanners scan certain substrates better, but in general the new generation of scanners outperforms the old, across all substrates. Clinical significance The substrates being scanned play an import role in the trueness and precision of the 3D model. The new generation of scanners is remarkably accurate across all substrates and for complete‐arch scanning.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners

Dutton

Ludlow

Mennito

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Five full‐arch scans of the maxilla were captured with each IOS. It has been shown that scanning system accuracy could be affected by operator experience . Thus, specific operators with thorough experience on particular systems were chosen to perform the IOS scans.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model

Bocklet

Renne

Mennito

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured Abstract Objective This study aimed to determine how the accuracy of digital impressions was affected by four common dental substrates using seven prevalent IOS systems to scan the complete arch of a human maxilla. Setting and Sample Population The Department of Oral Rehabilitation at the Medical University of South Carolina. A single cadaver maxilla. Materials and Methods Seven digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a freshly harvested human maxilla. The maxilla contained several teeth restored with amalgam and composite, as well as unrestored teeth characterized by enamel. Also, three teeth were prepared for full coverage restorations to expose natural dentin. An industrial grade metrology software program that allowed 3D overlay and dimensional computation compared deviations of the complete arch and its substrates on the test model from the reference model. Results Substrates were significantly different from each other when considering scan data as a whole, as well as when comparing IOS devices individually. Only PlanScan failed to reveal trueness differences between the different substrates, while only Emerald revealed precision differences between the substrates. Conclusions Substrate type does impact the overall accuracy of intraoral scans with dentin being the most accurate and enamel being the least accurate. The four substrates scanned impacted the trueness of all IOS devices.

show abstract

“…A recent study by Al Hamad et al on the learning curve for use of intraoral scanners revealed that the scanning time and difficulty level decreased with repetitive use of the scanner. Single image systems like the Bluecam required longer learning time compared with the newer systems that produce continuous images . The newer systems also offer better trueness and precision, and are less likely to be influenced by the experience of the clinician or the region being scanned .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: a network meta‐analysis

Sivaramakrishnan

Alsobaiei

Sridharan

2019

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Digital impression techniques have seen many advancements, with new hardware and software being developed each year. The technical advantages of these systems are real‐time visualization, evaluation and archive, segmental capture, ease of recapture if necessary, economical in terms of no use of impression material or trays or disinfection, easy file transfer and communication with the laboratory. However patient satisfaction is one major factor that might influence the choice of impression technique. The aim of this network meta‐analysis was to identify statistically the evidence on overall patient preferences relative to digital versus conventional impression techniques, in addition to the time taken in making these impressions. Methodology Randomized or prospective clinical studies were identified based on the inclusion criteria in PUBMED, DARE and COCHRANE databases; subsequently pertinent data were extracted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity amongst the studies in direct comparison was assessed by Chi‐square and I2 tests using the Inverse variance heterogeneity model. Direct comparison estimates were derived by pooling the data from studies that compared the same intervention. Indirect comparison pooled estimates were derived by using the data amongst the studies, through a common comparator, using MetaXL software. Mean differences and Odds ratio at 95% confidence interval were used as the effect estimates, while inconsistencies were evaluated by H‐statistics. GRADE working group approach was used to assess the quality of available evidence. Results Fourteen studies were included. Results from 11 studies on 471 patients (236‐Digital; 235‐conventional) were pooled for patient preference with 95% confidence interval. The Forest plot showed a pooled estimate of 31.23 [5.95, 163.87], showing a statistically significant number of patients favouring digital impressions. Results from 11 studies reported the time taken in 589 patients (278‐digital; 311 conventional). The pooled estimate (2.72 [0.08, 5.32]) (95% confidence interval) showed a statistically significant increase in the time required to make digital impressions. The overall time taken in minutes for the interventions in the digital group in decreasing order were: LAVA Cos (8.14[3.64,12,26] (statistically significant); I tero (4.11[‐1.02,9.24]; CEREC (0.34[‐4.14,4.82]). Conclusion There was an overall preference for digital impressions, although the time required is longer. The factors related to the digital system, the operator and the patient were studied, with recommendations forming a basis for possible hardware and software upgrades of the digital systems that can produce significant improvement in the acceptance rate for both the patient and the clinician.

show abstract

Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience

Cited by 186 publications

References 33 publications

The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners

The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners

Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model

Patient preference and operating time for digital versus conventional impressions: a network meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About