Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro

Zimmermann, Moritz; Ender, Andreas; Mehl, Albert

doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2019.10.022

Cited by 76 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have reported the performance of intraoral scanning for the complete arch [12][13][14], multiunit models [15][16][17], and single-crown models [18,19]. In contrast, only a few studies have assessed the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for inlay restorations [20][21][22]. The introduction of errors into the digital intraoral impression before inlay fabrication can lead to an ill-fitting restoration which cannot be seated completely in the tooth, resulting in marginal discrepancy, occlusal interferences, loss of retention, biofilm accumulation, and secondary caries [23,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of tooth location and inlay cavity type on the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions. Methods: Class II inlay preparation was performed on anatomical models of the maxillary first molar (16) and mandibular first molar (46). Mesioocclusal and disto-occlusal cavities were prepared, such that the axial wall of the proximal box measured 1 mm or 2 mm in height. Thus, four types of inlay cavities were prepared in 16 and 46, respectively. Ten digital impressions of each cavity were obtained using Cerec Primescan (Sirona). Reference scans were obtained with a laboratory scanner (E3, 3Shape). All scan data were exported for comparative analysis of the three-dimensional models. Mean absolute deviation values were calculated to evaluate the trueness and precision of the digital models. Color-coded maps were used for the qualitative analysis of deviations. Results: The overall results showed that the trueness for 16 (10.43 ± 0.39 μm) was higher than that for 46 (12.42 ± 0.59 μm) (p < 0.05), while the precision was similar between 16 (3.08 ± 0.92 μm) and 46 (3.08 ± 0.76 μm). The cavity type affected the accuracy of the digital impressions. The highest deviation was observed in positive directions at the margins of the proximal boxes regardless of the cavity type. Conclusions: Tooth location and cavity type affected the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions. Positive deviations were observed at the margins of the proximal boxes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparative analysis of three-dimensional (3D) models, a method widely used in engineering and adapted for dentistry, involves the superimposition of two surfaces after best-fit alignment [12][13][14][20][21][22]. This superimposition of digital datasets is useful for evaluating the accuracy of digital impressions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To this end, we examined the 3Shape TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) because it is one of the major intraoral scanning systems currently on the market and has gained widespread use in restorative dentistry. In addition, several recent studies have shown that the TRIOS 3 is one of the most accurate intraoral scanners, in comparison to other intraoral scanning systems [9][10][11]. However, different scan settings have been suggested by the manufacturer and a variety of scanning techniques have been applied depending on operator preferences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Chiu

Chen

Hayashi

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advancement of intraoral scanners has allowed for more efficient workflow in the dental clinical setting. However, limited data exist regarding the accuracy of the digital impressions produced with various scanner settings and scanning approaches. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions at the crown preparation margin using different scanning resolutions of a specific intraoral scanner system. An all-ceramic crown preparation of a mandibular first molar was constructed in a typodont, and a scan (n = 3) was created with an industrial-grade laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) as the control. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) under three settings—high resolution (HR), standard resolution (SR), and combined resolution (SHR). Comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed with Geomagic Control X software to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the control scan along the preparation finish line. The scan time and number of images captured per scan were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and Dunnett’s T3 test (α = 0.05). Significant differences were observed for scan time and for number of images captured among scan resolution settings (α < 0.05). The scan time for the SR group was, on average, 34.2 s less than the SHR group and 46.5 s less than the HR group. For discrepancy on the finish line, no significant differences were observed among scanning resolutions (HR: 31.5 ± 5.5 μm, SHR: 33.2 ± 3.7 μm, SR: 33.6 ± 3.1 μm). Significant differences in discrepancy were observed among tooth surfaces, with the distal surface showing the highest discrepancies. In conclusion, the resolution of the intra-oral scanner is primarily defined by the system hardware and optimized for default scans. A software high-resolution mode that obtains more data over a longer time may not necessarily benefit the scan accuracy, while the tooth preparation and surface parameters do affect the accuracy.

show abstract

“…Several factors might influence restoration survival and success, including patientrelated caries risk and occlusal load [42][43][44]; in addition, the clinical experience of the operator may contribute to differences in treatment outcomes. The latter involves not only the designing of the preparation, the execution and accuracy of the IOS, but also the cementation procedure and finishing of the restoration [45]. In order to limit the influence of these factors, patients with high caries risk were excluded from the study at baseline.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Evaluation of Resin Composite CAD/CAM Restorations Placed by Undergraduate Students

Vervack¹,

Coster²,

Vandeweghe³

2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of resin composite CAD/CAM restorations in a prospective cohort study, and to assess patient and operator satisfaction after restoration placement, 59 indirect resin composite were placed by supervised undergraduate students, of which 43 restorations were followed over a mean period of 28 months (14–44 months) and evaluated using USPHS criteria. Patient and operator satisfaction levels were assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) after restoration placement. A total of 37 patients and 47 restorations were included for further study. Four teeth were extracted—three due to extensive drug-induced secondary caries in the same patient, and one tooth due to large periapical periodontitis after 44 months of service. The overall survival rate was 91.4%, and success rate was 87.2%. Differences between baseline and endpoint scores were significant for marginal discoloration (p < 0.05) and adaptation (p < 0.001). Color match (p < 0.05) and surface texture (p < 0.001) differed significantly, affecting all restoration types. VAS scores for patient and operator satisfaction showed a significant rank correlation (p < 0.01), and pairwise comparison showed significant differences for mean overall patient and operator VAS scores (p < 0.001). Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM may be considered a suitable material for overlays and endocrown restorations when combined with IDS, air abrasion, and MDP-containing adhesive systems. Marginal disintegration may present in inlays and onlays over time.

show abstract

Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro

Cited by 76 publications

References 31 publications

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Clinical Evaluation of Resin Composite CAD/CAM Restorations Placed by Undergraduate Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About