Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners

Kim, Jisun; Park, Ji‐Man; Kim, Minji; Heo, Seong‐Joo; Shin, Im Hee; Kim, Min Ji

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018

Cited by 134 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study showed that the standard deviation was higher than the mean errors from the control mesh, indicating that the relative precision was low. Previous studies that have analyzed the accuracy of the digital scans performed with different IOSs systems, have not provided analysis on how lighting conditions affect scanning accuracy which make questionable the accuracy values reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intraoral scanner (IOS) devices provide a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression making for tooth and implant‐supported crowns and short‐span fixed dental prostheses . Different factors influence scanning accuracy including technology of the IOS selected, calibration, handling and learning, scanning conditions, surface characteristics, scanning protocols, and the postprocessing methods performed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner

Revilla‐León

Subramanian

Özcan

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

152

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To quantify the impact of ambient lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner (IOS) when maxillary complete-arch and maxillary right quadrant digital scans were performed in a patient. Material and Methods: One complete dentate patient was selected. A complete maxillary arch vinyl polysiloxane impression was obtained and poured using Type IV dental stone. The working cast was digitized using a laboratory scanner (E4 Dental Scanner; 3Shape) and the reference standard tessellation language (STL file) was obtained. Two groups were created based on the extension of the maxillary digital scans performed namely complete-arch (CA group) and right quadrant (RQ) groups. The CA and RQ digital scans of the patient were performed using an IOS (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) with 4 lighting conditions chair light (CL), 10 000 lux, room light (RL), 1003 lux, natural light (NL), 500 lux, and no light (ZL), 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group at each ambient light settings (CL, RL, NL, and ZL) were consecutively obtained (n = 10). The STL R file was used to analyze the discrepancy between the digitized working cast and digital scans using MeshLab software. Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and pair-wise comparison were used to analyze the data. Results: Significant difference in the trueness and precision values were found across different lighting conditions where RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error compared with the other lighting conditions tested followed by CL, NL, and ZL. On the CA group, RL condition also obtained the best accuracy values, CL and NL conditions performed closely and under ZL condition the mean error presented the highest values. On the RQ group, CL condition presented the lowest absolute error when compared with the other lighting conditions evaluated. A pair-wise multicomparison showed no significant difference between NL and ZL conditions. In all groups, the standard deviation was higher than the mean errors from the control mesh, indicating that the relative precision was low. Conclusions: Light conditions significantly influenced on the scanning accuracy of the IOS evaluated. RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error value of the digital scans performed. The extension of the digital scan was a scanning accuracy influencing factor. The higher the extension of the digital scan performed, the lower the accuracy values obtained. Furthermore, ambient light scanning conditions influenced differently depending on the extension of the digital scans made.Intraoral scanner (IOS) devices provide a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression making for tooth and implant-supported crowns and short-span fixed dental prostheses. 1-13 Different factors influence scanning accuracy including technology of the IOS selected, 1,10-23 calibration, 23 handling and learning, 24,25 scanning conditions, 26,27 surface

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner

Revilla‐León

Subramanian

Özcan

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

152

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The limited intraoral condition, the impact of the scanning accuracy on the prosthesis, and the impact of the increase in the range of scanning on the accuracy have been investigated for the development and application of intraoral scanners [3,7,8,10,11,13,[20][21][22][23]. However, there are no studies investigating the accuracy of intraoral scanning according to the tooth type, and the anterior and posterior regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Kang

Lee

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of five different intraoral scanners and two different laboratory scanners for a complete arch. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained using industrial scanners. A CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using five types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500) and two types of laboratory scanners (3shape E1 and DOF) (N = 20). In addition, the CRM and CTM were superimposed using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems) and 3D analysis was performed. In the 3D analysis, the accuracy was measured by the type of tooth, the anterior and posterior region, and the overall region. As for the statistical analysis of the accuracy, the differences were confirmed using the Kruskal–Wallis H test (α = 0.05). Also, the differences between the groups were analyzed by post-hoc tests including Mann–Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction method (α = 0.0017). There was a significant difference in the scanning accuracy of the complete arch according to the type of scanner (P < 0.001). The i500 Group showed the lowest accuracy (143 ± 69.6 µm), while the 3Shape E1 Group was the most accurate (14.3 ± 0.3 µm). Also, the accuracy was lower in the posterior region than in the anterior region in all types of scanners (P < 0.001). Scanning accuracy of the complete arch differed depending on the type of scanner. While three types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios3) can be recommended for scanning of a complete arch, the two remaining types of intraoral scanners (Trios2 and i500) cannot be recommended.

show abstract

“…Different studies have analyzed the relationship between technology employed by an IOS system and the accuracy of its acquisition procedure . Factors that could impact the accuracy of a digital impression performed by IOS have also been studied, namely handling and learning curve, calibration, scanning protocol, AMbient light scanning conditions, surface characteristics, mobile tissue, reflective restorations, and/or presence of saliva . Digital impression techniques are a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression methods in fabrication of tooth and implant‐supported crowns and short fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Factors that could impact the accuracy of a digital impression performed by IOS 18 have also been studied, namely handling and learning curve, 19,20 calibration, 21 scanning protocol, [22][23][24] AMbient light scanning conditions, 25 surface characteristics, [26][27][28][29] mobile tissue, 30 reflective restorations, and/or presence of saliva. 19,[31][32][33] Digital impression techniques are a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression methods in fabrication of tooth and implant-supported crowns and short fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Both dental and open source CAD tools provide a powerful virtual diagnostic assessment for restorative planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Workflow description of additively manufactured clear silicone indexes for injected provisional restorations: A novel technique

Revilla‐León

Fountain

Piedra‐Cascón

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The present article describes the digital workflow protocol for additive manufacturing (AM) of a clear silicone index to be used for an injected provisional restoration fabrication. Clinical considerations The incorporation of CAD software and AM technologies have allowed the integration of a new way to fabricate conventional diagnostic wax‐ups and silicone indexes for preparing diagnostic mock ups, direct composite restorations, or provisional restorations. Although the conventional concept remains, the protocol differs. Conclusions This workflow provides a more efficient and accurate procedure with the reduction of time and cost compared to conventional technique. Clinical Significance The digital workflow protocol described for AM of a clear silicone index to be used for an injected provisional restoration fabrication is time and cost efficient compared to conventional procedures.

show abstract

Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners

Cited by 134 publications

References 19 publications

Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner

Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Workflow description of additively manufactured clear silicone indexes for injected provisional restorations: A novel technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About