Influence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems for class <scp>II</scp> inlay preparation

Kim, Jae-Hoon; Son, Sung-Ae; Lee, Hyeonjong; Yoo, Yeon-Jee; Hong, Seoung-Jin; Park, Jeong-Kil

doi:10.1111/jerd.12824

Cited by 10 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This finding is in accordance with a previous study comparing IOS devices for preparations [14]. On the other hand, another study on inlay preparations described that Primescan (Dentsply-Sirona) had the best trueness [20]. Regarding IOS of dental arches, it was found that the IOS devices included by the studies varied considerably, which prevented this review from drawing any conclusions about which devices actually have the best trueness.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…After initial screening of the publications using titles, abstracts and keywords, 13 articles were considered within the inclusion criteria. After the application of exclusion criteria, a total of nine studies (6 in vitro and 3 in vivo) were finally identified (Figure 1) as eligible to be discussed [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]. All papers assessed were available on both databases used in this study.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intraoral scanning (IOS) technologies have been constantly developed and improved. This systematic review aimed at assessing studies in the recent literature describing factors that influence the trueness of intraoral scans. Methods: Comparative in vitro and in vivo (i.e., interventional and observational) studies that quantitatively assessed the trueness of intraoral scans and that identified factors significantly affecting IOS trueness values were considered eligible for inclusion. The PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published in the last two years (from February 2020 to February 2022). Data assessment and extraction were performed according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. Results: The present search strategy yielded 13 publications. An initial screening of the publications was performed using abstracts and key words, and after application of exclusion criteria, a total of nine studies were finally identified as eligible to be discussed. Several factors significantly affecting IOS were identified. Conclusions: Studies using current IOS technologies revealed that the device, scanning distance, operator experience, rescanning and post-processing scans, conditions of the preparations and presence of adjacent teeth are factors significantly affecting IOS trueness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Today, IOS systems have the advantages of ease of use, ergonomic handling, quick scanning, and reliability. Several studies have confirmed the accuracy of IOS systems for multiple applications 1–8 . However, despite the abundance of studies on the accuracy of IOS systems, there is considerable disparity in their designs 9–12 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The variations can be related to the scanning span, the number of units, scanned substrate material and design, and the condition of the scanned teeth 10 . One of the features that have not been fully investigated is the implication of tooth preparation type on the accuracy of IOS 1–3,9,13–15 . Variations in preparation types and designs, such as crown, onlay, and inlay, may interfere with the scanning process and the capturing of the preparation surface details 16–21 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the preparation type is clinically determined, each preparation exhibits different features that may influence the accuracy of IOS. This involves preparation margins, cavity depth, preparation length, the complexity of preparation geometry, and the level of convergence 1–3,9,13,22,23 . Therefore, IOS‐related recommendations are needed for the different types of preparations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of preparation type on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study at different levels of accuracy evaluation

Abduo

Laskey

2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Evaluation of the effect of preparation type (inlay, onlay, and crown) on the accuracy of different intraoral scanning (IOS) systems at the preparation and arch segment levels. Materials and Methods Three molars were prepared for inlay, onlay, and crown. Each preparation was scanned 10 times by CEREC Omnicam, Trios 3 (TS), and Medit i500 scanners. Each image was trimmed twice. The first trimming produced a preparation image (PI), and the second trimming extracted a segment image (SI) that involved the preparation with the adjacent teeth. Trueness and precision were calculated at the PI and SI levels. Results At the PI level, all IOS systems had similar trueness pattern for all preparations, where the inlay had the best trueness followed by the crown and onlay. At the SI level, the different preparations showed similar trueness. The precision did not show a clear pattern of superiority for any preparation. The TS was significantly more precise than other IOS systems at the PI and SI levels, for every preparation. The proximal areas suffered from the greatest errors, regardless of preparation type. Conclusions The preparation type influenced PI trueness, and the IOS system affected PI and SI precisions. Clinical Significance The smaller and less complex preparations have greater IOS accuracy than larger and more complex preparations. As the proximal areas are more affected regardless of the preparation, a more accessible proximal area for scanning is desirable.

show abstract