Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan

Keeling, Andrew; Wu, Jianhua; Ferrari, Marco

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.003

Cited by 44 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some researchers have reported that restoration type, tooth geometry, and tooth location affected the accuracy of digital impressions [21,27,28]. Proximal areas are most challenging for adequate digital impressions [21,29,30]. MO and DO cavities are commonly encountered in clinical practice, and have different accessibility and visual interference in the oral cavity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, some in vitro studies on intraoral scanning were performed under free-space conditions, i.e., the model was held in the hand during scanning, which permitted greater freedom while placing the scanning wands [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. A greater degree of freedom (than that which is actually available in the oral cavity) ensures a direct line-of-sight, favorable angle of incidence, which can affect the quality of the scan [30,31]. An in vivo study found that the precision for extraoral scanning was higher than that for intraoral scanning with the same intraoral scanner [31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An in vivo study found that the precision for extraoral scanning was higher than that for intraoral scanning with the same intraoral scanner [31]. An in vitro study by Keeling et al [30] demonstrated that the sharpness of the distal margin of a crown preparation on the lower molar was significantly decreased in scans obtained from a phantom head. Studies comparing intraoral scanners and laboratory scanners showed that laboratory scanners produced a more precise outcome than intraoral scanners [27,31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of tooth location and inlay cavity type on the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions. Methods: Class II inlay preparation was performed on anatomical models of the maxillary first molar (16) and mandibular first molar (46). Mesioocclusal and disto-occlusal cavities were prepared, such that the axial wall of the proximal box measured 1 mm or 2 mm in height. Thus, four types of inlay cavities were prepared in 16 and 46, respectively. Ten digital impressions of each cavity were obtained using Cerec Primescan (Sirona). Reference scans were obtained with a laboratory scanner (E3, 3Shape). All scan data were exported for comparative analysis of the three-dimensional models. Mean absolute deviation values were calculated to evaluate the trueness and precision of the digital models. Color-coded maps were used for the qualitative analysis of deviations. Results: The overall results showed that the trueness for 16 (10.43 ± 0.39 μm) was higher than that for 46 (12.42 ± 0.59 μm) (p < 0.05), while the precision was similar between 16 (3.08 ± 0.92 μm) and 46 (3.08 ± 0.76 μm). The cavity type affected the accuracy of the digital impressions. The highest deviation was observed in positive directions at the margins of the proximal boxes regardless of the cavity type. Conclusions: Tooth location and cavity type affected the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions. Positive deviations were observed at the margins of the proximal boxes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, to adequately capture the dimensions of the peri‐implant soft tissues, the emergence profile should be cone‐shaped, and the depth of the implant platform should be less than 4 mm. A deeper implant platform could not be conveniently impressed, since working depth of the intraoral devices is limited, and the scanning field of view is restricted by the adjacent teeth …”

Section: Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Digital Impression in the Esthetic Area

Monaco

Scheda

Baldissara

et al. 2018

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this report is to describe two standardized protocols for digital impression when implant support rehabilitation is used in the esthetic area. The two techniques were used to transfer all provisional crown parameters to definitive restorations in different clinical scenarios. In the direct technique, an impression (STL1) is made of the provisional restorations attached to the implants, with surrounding gingival tissue. The second scan (STL2) captures the sulcular aspect of the peri-implant soft tissue immediately after removal of the provisional restoration. The last impression (STL3) of the complete arch is made with a standardized scanbody attached to the implant to capture the 3D location of the implant. The direct technique is indicated when the peri-implant soft tissues are stable upon removal of the provisional restoration. The indirect technique is used when the gingival tissue collapses rapidly after the removal of the provisional crown. The impressions of the provisional restoration and the position of the implant are similar to those obtained with the direct technique, and the shape of the peri-implant tissue is extrapolated from the negative shape obtained from making the digital impression when the provisional restoration is taken out of the mouth. Finally, in both techniques the 3 scans are superimposed to obtain a file, which contains the details of the peri-implant soft tissue. The direct and indirect digital techniques allowed realization of a predictable definitive restoration in the esthetic zone in different clinical scenarios, reducing the duration of clinical procedures.

show abstract

“… 7 8 9 In this regard, the most commonly used scanners are extraoral and intraoral scanners. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Extraoral scanners to obtain three-dimensional (3D) data are laser, optical, white light, and blue light model scanners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the reproducibility of various abutments using a blue light model scanner

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSETo evaluate the reproducibility of scan-based abutments using a blue light model scanner.MATERIALS AND METHODSA wax cast abutment die was fabricated, and a silicone impression was prepared using a silicone material. Nine study dies were constructed using the prepared duplicable silicone, and the first was used as a reference. These dies were classified into three groups and scanned using a blue light model scanner. The first three-dimensional (3D) data set was obtained by scanning eight dies separately in the first group. The second 3D data set was acquired when four dies were placed together in the scanner and scanned twice in the second group. Finally, the third 3D data set was obtained when eight dies were placed together in the scanner and scanned once. These data were then used to define the data value using third-dimension software. All the data were then analyzed using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test (α=.05) and the post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni's correction (α=.017).RESULTSThe means and standard deviations of the eight dies together were larger than those of the four dies together and of the individual die. Moreover, significant differences were observed among the three groups (P<.05).CONCLUSIONWith larger numbers of abutments scanned together, the scan becomes more inaccurate and loses reproducibility. Therefore, scans of smaller numbers of abutments are recommended to ensure better results.

show abstract

Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan

Cited by 44 publications

References 14 publications

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

Implant Digital Impression in the Esthetic Area

Evaluation of the reproducibility of various abutments using a blue light model scanner

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About