Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self 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.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dutton

Ludlow

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

“…Evidence in the literature is growing more positive that the clinical applicability of these machines is in the line with the accuracy needed to attain clinically acceptable results …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner

Evans

Nash

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

Objectives An impression accuracy study using a cadaver maxilla was performed using both prepared and intact teeth as well as palatal tissue. Materials and Methods Three crown preparations were performed on a cadaver maxilla. Seven different digital impression systems along with polyvinylsiloxane impressions were used to create digital models of the maxilla. Three‐dimensional (3D) files of the experimental models were compared to a master model. The 3D files were overlaid and analyzed using a comparison software to create color coded figures that were measured for deviations between the master and experimental models. Results For scanning tooth structure, only the Planscan was significantly less accurate than the rest of impression techniques. No significant differences in accuracy were found between models created using digital impressions and those created from traditional vinyl polysiloxane impressions with cross arch deviations ranging from 18 to 39 μm for each. Conclusions Impressions taken using all digital impression systems, save for the Planscan, were able to accurately replicate the tissues of a complete arch human maxilla. Clinical Significance Studies examining accuracy of digital impression systems have generally been performed on materials other than dental tissues. Optically, materials such as plastic and metal have properties different from enamel and dentin. This study evaluates accuracy of digital impression systems on human dentin, enamel, and soft tissues.

“…Furthermore, digital impressions can lead to cost savings in space, record portability and facilitated collaboration between clinicians and laboratories . However, IOS devices are not without limitations, and current literature suggests sensitivities to intraoral fluids, scanning technique and variation in substrate may affect the accuracy of IOS data acquisition …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Bocklet

Renne

Orthod Craniofacial Res

et al. 2019

Self 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.