Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners

Abstract

Interest in intraoral scanners (IOSs) has increased in dentistry since the introduction of the CEREC system in 1984. 1 The rapid pace of innovation in digital scanners has increased the indications for use to include more complicated completearch prostheses, removable prostheses, extensive implantsupported prostheses, and orthodontic aligners. 2-6 Intraoral digital scans are now acceptable for complete arch prostheses supported by nonparallel implants, which is a testament to how far the technology has advanced. 7 These expanded indications combined with an increase in the ease of use have increased the adoption of digital workflows. This results in increased patient comfort, shortened treatment time, and the potential for decreased overhead, all while maintaining the quality of conventional systems. 8-11 Additionally, intraoral Declaration of Interest: A.M. and W.R. have lectured for Planmeca at CE events and received honoraria. M.L. has lectured for Dentsply Sirona at CE events and received honoraria.

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

“…Apart from hardware research, manufacturers make significant investments in performing software R&D to continually improve the accuracy of IOS (both trueness and precision), which can also be experienced by users after a version update [27,42]. Furthermore, many factors can influence accuracies such as scanning pattern [5,43,44] or substrate reflectance [29,30] software settings and upgraded versions [6,42]. Accuracy studies must be reevaluated from time to time due to this constant development.…”

“…Determining the precision of the IOS from in vivo clinical assessment is a fairly simple method, as the 3D models generated through the repeated, consecutive scanning of the dental arch can easily be compared with appropriate analytical software that can superimpose these models with each other [6,12,13,24,[44][45][46]. However, direct evaluation of the trueness value is not possible in vivo, as the reference model can only be created using indirect extraoral methods with physical or optical tracking devices.…”

“…A dental arch constrained within a human's head cannot be transferred into these devices. Therefore, trueness values are usually assessed in vitro, on the manufactured physical samples [6,24,[44][45][46]. Recently, it has been demonstrated that the optical properties of various materials influence the accuracy of IOS, which is likely also true of mucosal tissues and other restorative and optical impression material combinations [29,30].…”

Effect of Tooth Types on the Accuracy of Dental 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

“…Since then, the introduction of intraoral scanners in the 1980s has enabled a fully digital workflow [1][2][3]10]. This has reduced the effects of the operator's experience and possible errors in the material (impression and dental stone) [3,7,8,11,12]. Advances in digital workflows have made it possible to evaluate temporomandibular joint (TMJ)-related diseases through cone-beam-computed tomography (CBCT) scans [13,14].…”

Occlusion in the digital era: a report on 3 cases

“…Another quality is color scanning and, thus, the possibility of color determination [4]. Initial indications that referred to obtaining 1 to 4 prosthetic units have changed, allowing the design and completion of vast prosthetic works, implant-based restorations and even of a full denture [5,6]. As for computerized design, new scanners have virtual articulators that enable the creation of a virtual design as much adapted occlusally as possible.…”