Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners

Fiore, Adolfo Di; Meneghello, Roberto; Graiff, Lorenzo; Savio, Gianpaolo; Vigolo, Paolo; Monaco, Carlo; Stellini, Edoardo

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002

Cited by 98 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the comparison of CBCT and dMRI imaging data, we decided to use stone casts produced from conventional polyether impressions. This decision was influenced by several studies which had raised concerns on full‐arch intraoral scan accuracy, especially in partially edentate cases such as the present (Di Fiore et al, ; Ender, Attin, & Mehl, ; Jeong et al, ; Kirschneck et al, ; Kuhr, Schmidt, Rehmann, & Wostmann, ; Patzelt, Emmanouilidi, Stampf, Strub, & Att, ; Wesemann, Muallah, Mah, & Bumann, ). Therefore, we used conventional impressions and subsequent extraoral scanning, aiming at the highest possible in vivo accuracy for our reference data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Hilgenfeld

Juerchott

Deisenhofer

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Guided implant surgery (GIS) requires alignment of virtual models to reconstructions of three‐dimensional imaging. Accurate visualization of the tooth surfaces in the imaging datasets is mandatory. In this prospective clinical study, in vivo tooth surface accuracy was determined for GIS using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). Materials and methods CBCT and 3‐Tesla dMRI were performed in 22 consecutive patients (mean age: 54.4 ± 15.2 years; mean number of restorations per jaw: 6.7 ± 2.7). Altogether, 92 teeth were included (31 incisor, 29 canines, 20 premolars, and 12 molars). Surfaces were reconstructed semi‐automatically and registered to a reference standard (3D scans of stone models made from full‐arch polyether impressions). Reliability of both methods was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Accuracy was evaluated using the two one‐sided tests procedure with a predefined equivalence margin of ±0.2 mm root mean square (RMS). Results Inter‐ and intrarater reliability of tooth surface reconstruction were comparable for CBCT and dMRI. Geometric deviations were 0.102 ± 0.042 mm RMS for CBCT and 0.261 ± 0.08 mm RMS for dMRI. For a predefined equivalence margin, CBCT and dMRI were statistically equivalent. CBCT, however, was significantly more accurate (p ≤ .0001). For both imaging techniques, accuracy did not differ substantially between different tooth types. Conclusion Cone‐beam computed tomography is an accurate and reliable imaging technique for tooth surfaces in vivo, even in the presence of metal artifacts. In comparison, dMRI in vivo accuracy is lower. Still, it allows for tooth surface reconstruction in satisfactory detail and within acceptable acquisition times.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Hilgenfeld

Juerchott

Deisenhofer

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[19] ere have been significant developments in intraoral scanner technology and its design that they overcame many limitations since then [25]. ere have been numerous studies since 2015 on the accuracy of intraoral scanner images in various prosthetic and orthodontic conditions [11,[26][27][28][29][30][31]. However, most of them were with dry models.…”

Section: D Superimposition Analysis (Geomagic Verify ™ ) Showsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Song

Kim

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim. is study aims to evaluate the accuracy of scanned images of 4 clinically used intraoral scanners (CS3600, i500, Trios3, Omnicam) when scanning the surface of full arch models with various kinds of orthodontic brackets in the presence of artificial saliva. Materials and Methods. Four study models were prepared; bonded with ceramic, metal, and resin brackets, respectively, and without brackets. Reference images were taken by scanning the models with an industrial scanner. Study models were then applied with an artificial saliva and scanned 10 times, respectively, with the above 4 intraoral scanners. All images were converted to STL file format and analyzed with 3D analysis software. By superimposing with the reference images, mean maximum discrepancy values and mean discrepancy values were collected and compared. For statistical analysis, two-way ANOVA was used. Results. Omnicam (1.247 ± 0.255) showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. CS3600 (0.758 ± 0.170), Trios3 (0.854 ± 0.166), and i500 (0.975 ± 0.172) performed relatively favourably. Resin (1.119 ± 0.255) and metal (1.086 ± 0.132) brackets showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. Nonbracket (0.776 ± 0.250) and ceramic bracket (0.853 ± 0.269) models generally showed lower mean maximum discrepancy values in studied scanners. In mean discrepancy values, the difference between scanners was not statistically significant whereas among brackets, resin bracketed models (0.093 ± 0.142) showed the highest value. Conclusion. Intraoral scanners and brackets had significant influences on the scanned images with application of artificial saliva on the study models. It may be expected to have similar outcomes in an intraoral environment. Some data showed the discrepancy values up to about 1.5 mm that would require more caution in using intraoral scanners for production of detailed appliances and records.

show abstract

“…Digital dental technology has recently gained considerable popularity and is being incorporated into the workflow of both fixed and implant prosthodontics 1,2 . The current applications of digital technology in fixed implant rehabilitation include three‐dimensional (3D) diagnostic imaging and related digital implant treatment planning, digitally‐planned template‐guided implant placement, digital scans and computer‐assisted design/computer‐assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) of interim and definitive implant prostheses 3‐8 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While digital planning, template‐guided surgery and CAD/CAM technology are established and routinely used in clinical practice, 3‐8 digital implant scans are considered relatively new to the implant‐prosthodontic field 2 . For partially edentulous patients, the use of digital scans is constantly increasing for indications of single or multiple adjacent implants 9‐13 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Versus Conventional Full‐Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae

Chochlidakis

Papaspyridakos

Tsigarida

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: A prospective clinical study to compare for the first time the accuracy of digital and conventional maxillary implant impressions for completely edentulous patients. Materials and Methods: Sixteen patients received maxillary implant supported fixed complete dentures. After the verification of the conventional final casts, the casts were scanned with a desktop (extraoral) scanner. Intraoral full-arch digital scans were also obtained with scan bodies and STL files. Extraoral and intraoral scans were superimposed and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary outcome measure was the assessment of accuracy between scans of the verified conventional casts and digital full-arch impressions. The secondary outcome was the effect of the implant number on the 3D accuracy of impressions with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. Results: The 3D deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized final stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 162 ± 77 µm. In the 4-implant group, 5-implant group, and 6-implant group the 3D deviations were found to be 139 ± 56 µm, 146 ± 90 µm, and 185 ± 81 µm, respectively. There was a positive correlation between increased implant number and 3D-deviations, but there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.191). Conclusions: The 3D accuracy of full-arch digital implant scans lies within previously reported clinically acceptable threshold. Full-arch digital scans and a complete digital workflow in the fabrication of maxillary fixed complete dentures may be clinically feasible.

show abstract

Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners

Cited by 98 publications

References 31 publications

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Digital Versus Conventional Full‐Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About