Influence of Tooth Preparation Design and Scan Angulations on the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Digital Scanners: An in Vitro Study Based on 3‐Dimensional Comparisons

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence of adjacent teeth. Materials and Methods Eight different complete coverage (CC) and partial coverage (PC) tooth preparations were scanned by two IOS, the 3Shape TRIOS (TRI) and the 3M True Definition (TRU). All teeth preparations were scanned in the presence and absence of adjacent teeth. Four groups were established for each IOS; Group 1: PC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 2: CC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 3: PC preparations without adjacent teeth. Group 4: CC preparations without adjacent teeth. 3D analysis was performed to examine average absolute discrepancy (AAD) and maximum absolute discrepancy (MAD). A Two‐way ANOVA was performed followed by a post‐hoc Tukey's test HSD to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth, preparation design, and the type of IOS used. Results For TRI, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 20 ± 1.8 µm, 19.6 ± 2.4 µm, 15.5 ± 2.7 µm, and 12.9 ± 1.4 µm, respectively, whereas MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 109.7 ± 13.5 µm, 93.2 ± 28.9 µm, 85.6 ± 16.1 µm, and 66 ± 20.1 µm, respectively. For TRU IOS, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 22.0 ± 3.6 µm, 17.9 ± 2 µm, 20 ± 5.9 µm, and 14.9 ± 1.7 µm, respectively, whereas the MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 151.4 ± 38.4 µm, 92.2 ± 17. µm, 92.6 ± 23.6 µm, and 71.4 ± 11.9 µm, respectively. Two‐way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences between the AAD and MAD of TRI and TRU (p < 0.001). There were also statistically significant differences for presence or absence of adjacent teeth (p < 0.001), and preparation design (p < 0.001). Conclusions PC preparation scans revealed lower accuracy than CC. The presence of adjacent teeth decreased the accuracy of both IOS. TRI gave higher accuracy than TRU for PC, but both IOS showed comparable accuracy for CC groups.

Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision

“…The discrepancy may come from the intraoral conditions of the patient which influence the accessibility of the scanners during the scanning phase. The importance of its accessibility was confirmed by a recent study which showed that partial coverage preparation and the presence of adjacent teeth resulted in significantly less accuracy due to the limitation of scan angulation and direction [25].…”

Effect of Different Software Programs on the Accuracy of Dental Scanner Using Three-Dimensional Analysis

“…The four software programs used in this study were used as evaluation tools for the accuracy of the 3D scanner in previous studies [2,6,15,16]. Of the four software programs, Geomagic control X has been used in most studies [3,14,26]. Materialise 3-matic is a 3D modeling software, and the 3D analysis applied in this study is an additional function of the software.…”

“…Previous studies have proposed a method to evaluate the accuracy of an intraoral or desktop scanner [1][2][3][4][6][7][8]10,11,[14][15][16]. The accuracy of the virtual cast was evaluated by measuring the linear distance between specific oral structures or between teeth of dental arches [8,17].…”

Di̇ş Heki̇mli̇ği̇nde Güncel İntraoral Tarayicilar

“…Ayrıca inley,onley gibi negatif yüzeylerde ayrıntıların daha az çıktığı görülmüştür. 81 Tablo 2, 3'deki veriler değerlendirildiğinde; intraoral tarayıcılar arasında Trios 3'ün hem daha başarılı sonuçlar verdiği hem de çalışmalarda daha çok tercih edildiği görülmüştür. 26,50,51,[82][83][84] Buna ek olarak bazı çalışmalarda CS 3600, True Definition ve Element 1 tarayıcıları kısa alan taramalarında tatmin edici değerler vermiştir.…”