Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans

Resende, Caio César Dias; Barbosa, Tiago; Moura, Guilherme Faria; Tavares, Lucas do Nascimento; Rizzante, Fábio Antônio Piola; George, Furat M.; Neves, Flávio Domingues das; Mendonça, Gustavo

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011

Cited by 92 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Nijmegen, in 2018, researchers studied whether the accuracy of the shape, color, and curvature of palatal soft tissues can be obtained in the scanned image. The results support the hypothesis that an intraoral scan can record a 3D image of palatal soft tissues [ 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Comparison of the Accuracy of 3D Images Obtained fromDifferent Types of Scanners: A Systematic Review

Kustrzycka

Marschang

Mikulewicz

et al. 2020

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the accuracy of the three-dimensional images among different scanners, scanning techniques, and substrates. Materials and methods. Electronic databases (PubMed and Elsevier) were searched until March 2020. The systematic search was performed to identify the most precise method of obtaining a 3D image of the dentition. Results. Thirteen articles out of 221, considering the accuracy of 3D images, were selected. The main factors that are considered to have an influence on the precision are substrate type in the oral cavity, experience of the scanner’s operator, direct vs. indirect scanning, and the reproducibility of the procedure. Conclusion. Substrate type does have an impact on the overall accuracy of intraoral scans where dentin has the most and enamel the least accurately recorded dental structure. Experience of the operator has an influence on the accuracy, where more experienced operators and smaller scan sizes are made for more accurate scans. A conventional impression technique in a full-arch image provided the lowest deviation. The reproducibility of direct scanning was comparable to indirect scanning although a slight difference was noticeable (0.02 mm).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Comparison of the Accuracy of 3D Images Obtained fromDifferent Types of Scanners: A Systematic Review

Kustrzycka

Marschang

Mikulewicz

et al. 2020

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Operator experience has been reported to improve the precision but not trueness of the TRIOS 3 (3Shape A/S) and CEREC Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona) scanners for a partially dentate arch with 3 implants. 26 On an edentulous resin cast with 6 implants, operator experience was not reported to be a factor with the iTero Element 2 (Align Technology, Inc), 18 but with the LAVA COS (3M) system, experienced users were reported to produce scans with significantly better accuracy. 19 No effect of experience was reported on trueness for a gypsum cast with 4 scan bodies with the Carestream CS 3600 or with the TRIOS 3 scanners.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

Revell

Simon

Mennito

et al. 2022

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The trueness of intraoral scanners for edentulous complete-arch scans with scan bodies has been investigated with a wide range of deviation from 31 mm to 810 mm, depending on the scanner type and measurement method. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] High deviation of the digital scan may result in a misfit of an implant prosthesis, which increases stresses and could lead to fracture of the screw, 8 abutments, or the veneer 9 or induce screw loosening. 10 The deviation at each implant should be less than 50 mm. 11,12 In the contemporary laboratory process, fabrication error falls within a range of 25 to 43 mm. [13][14][15] Thus, the intraoral scanner error should be in a similar range to keep the total error less than 50 mm. A clinical study using a completely

show abstract

“…Especially in full-arch scanning, not only the type of scanner but also the scanning protocol, such as the scanning path, affects the accuracy of digital scanning [ 24 ]. The operator’s factors, such as scanning skills and learning curves, also affect the accuracy of scans [ 25 ]. In this study, one experienced prosthodontist performed the scans following the manufacturer’s recommended strategy to avoid errors from different scanning styles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Scanning-Aid Materials on the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Digital Scanning: An In Vitro Study

Lim

Kim

et al. 2021

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was performed to verify the influence of scanning-aid materials on the accuracy and time efficiency of full-arch scanning with intraoral scanners. The full-arch reference model was constructed by a 3D printer and scanned with a model scanner to obtain the reference dataset. Four experimental groups (application of ScanCure (SC-80, ODS Co, Incheon, Korea), IP Scan Spray (IP-Division, Haimhausen, Germany) and Vita Powder Scan Spray (Vita Zahnfabrik, Stuttgart, Germany), and no treatment) were designed, and the scans were executed (trueness, n = 5) using two intraoral scanners: I500 (Medit Co., Seoul, Korea) and TRIOS (3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). All acquired scan data were compared with the reference datasets using the 3D superimposition method and 2D linear measurements. In the 3D analysis, intragroup data were compared with each other (precision, n = 10). Time efficiency was also verified by comparing the scan times of the four experimental groups. In the 3D analysis, the root mean square (RMS) value of the precision of the scanned image was statistically significantly more accurate in the scanning-aid agent-treated groups than in the no-treatment group (p < 0.05). However, the RMS values of trueness and the types of scanning-aid materials were not significantly different. In the 2D measurements, the increased scan distance generated a greater distance deviation. The working time was significantly shorter in the scanning-aid agent groups than in the no-treatment group, with statistical significance (p < 0.05). Therefore, in clinical situations, the application of scanning-aid materials is recommended to reduce scanning time and more efficiently obtain the full-arch scanned image.

show abstract

Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans

Cited by 92 publications

References 17 publications

Comparison of the Accuracy of 3D Images Obtained fromDifferent Types of Scanners: A Systematic Review

Comparison of the Accuracy of 3D Images Obtained fromDifferent Types of Scanners: A Systematic Review

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

Influence of Scanning-Aid Materials on the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Digital Scanning: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About