Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: An in vitro study

Gurpinar, Bahar; Tak, Önjen

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.034

Cited by 20 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This coincided with an increase in deviation along the prepared root canal from the occlusal internal to apical measurement areas in the present study. The preparation depth of endocrowns ranged from 2 to 5 mm [37]. Gurpinar et al reported at 5 mm is within the range determined in this study for the measurement areas of the first and second root canal thirds.…”

Section: Digital Impression Taking With Ios (Part A)supporting

confidence: 86%

“…Gurpinar et al [37] investigated the influence of endocrown preparation depth on the accuracy of digital impressions and reported a higher deviation for more deeply prepared endocrowns. This coincided with an increase in deviation along the prepared root canal from the occlusal internal to apical measurement areas in the present study.…”

Section: Digital Impression Taking With Ios (Part A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Larger scattering in the data can be observed by the deviation of this measurement area in this in vitro study for various reasons. In the in vitro study by Gurpinar et al [37] the test specimens were manufactured with resin composite, and no human teeth were used. Furthermore, the selection of the IOS differed; even though IOS Primescan was used as well, IOS Trios 3 is the previous generation of the IOS Trios 4 analyzed in this study.…”

Section: Digital Impression Taking With Ios (Part A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners and Fabrication of CAD/CAM Posts and Cores in a Fully Digital Workflow

Leven

Schmidt

Binder³

et al. 2022

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current intraoral scanners (IOS) enable direct impression taking for computer-aided de-sign/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) posts and cores (P+C) with subsequent milling out of monolithic materials. The aim of this in vitro study was to systematically investigate the accuracy of CAD/CAM-P+C in a fully digital workflow, considering different IOS impression methods (Primescan (PRI), Trios4 without (TRI) and with scanpost (TRI+SP)) (Part A), and CAD/CAM milling of zirconium dioxid (ZIR) and resin composite (COM)-P+C (Part B). Five human models were developed in this study. Micro-CT imaging was used as a reference (REF). For Part A, the models were scanned 12 times for each impression method. Then, IOS datasets (n = 180) were superimposed with REF, and scan accuracy was determined using 3D software (GOMInspect). For Part B, one CAD/CAM-P+C (n = 30) was milled for each model, impression method, and material. The triple-scan method was applied using an industrial scanner (ATOS) to determine the accuracy of the fit. Statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA, p < 0.05). Part A showed for PRI significantly lower accuracy than TRI and TRI+SP (p < 0.05). The data of Part B revealed significantly higher accuracy for ZIR than for COM (p < 0.05). Within the limitations of this study, CAD/CAM-P+C of the ZIR can be recommended for fabrication in a fully digital workflow regarding the accuracy of fit.

show abstract

Section: Digital Impression Taking With Ios (Part A)supporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Digital Impression Taking With Ios (Part A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Digital Impression Taking With Ios (Part A)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners and Fabrication of CAD/CAM Posts and Cores in a Fully Digital Workflow

Leven

Schmidt

Binder³

et al. 2022

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31 In another recent study on local accuracy for crown and inlay preparations on a tooth, Primescan showed the highest accuracy among the IOS systems tested, and its accuracy approximated that of conventional impressions obtained with a polyvinylsiloxane elastomer. 13 Grupinar et al 32 investigated endocrown impressions and reported that Primescan showed the highest accuracy from among CEREC Omnicam, TRIOS 3, iTero Element 2, Planmeca Emerald, and Virtuo Vivo, irrespective of the depth of the cavity. The findings of these previous studies are consistent with those of the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems for class II inlay preparation

Kim

Son

Lee

et al. 2021

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of the presence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) systems for class II inlay preparation. Materials and Methods:The mesio-occlusal inlay preparation was prepared in an anatomical model of the maxillary molar. The prepared tooth was secured to a typodont with the mesial adjacent tooth removed or in situ. Ten digital impressions of the inlay preparation were acquired using three IOS systems (CEREC Primescan, 3Shape TRIOS 3, and Medit i500). A laboratory scanner (3Shape E3) was used to obtain the reference scan data. The mean absolute deviation values were calculated to evaluate the accuracy of the digital models. Results:The group with the adjacent teeth present showed lower trueness and precision compared to that without the adjacent tooth (p < .05). Significant differences were observed among the IOS systems (p < .05). Primescan showed the highest accuracy, irrespective of the presence of adjacent teeth. Conclusions:The presence of the adjacent tooth negatively affected the accuracy of all the IOSs tested. Although the performance of Primescan was superior to that of TRIOS 3 and i500, each IOS system showed clinically acceptable levels of accuracy for class II inlay preparation.

show abstract

“…Intraoral scanners (IOS) haven’t traditionally been used for these indications mainly since digitizing root canal preparations was thought to be too challenging for dental optical scanners. However, recent advances in IOSs technology seem to allow the use of optical impressions in root canal preparations [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. In addition to the usual advantages offered by computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM): patient comfort, immediate control of preparation quality, or dematerialization of the workflow [ 12 , 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the measurement error of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral and one extra-oral dental scanners of post and core preparations

Dupagne

Mawussi

Tapie

et al. 2023

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: An in vitro study

Cited by 20 publications

References 28 publications

Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners and Fabrication of CAD/CAM Posts and Cores in a Fully Digital Workflow

Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners and Fabrication of CAD/CAM Posts and Cores in a Fully Digital Workflow

Influence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems for class II inlay preparation

Comparison of the measurement error of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral and one extra-oral dental scanners of post and core preparations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About