Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: A comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans

Sun, L.; Lee, Jin-Sol; Choo, Hyun-Hee; Hwang, Hyeon-Shik; Lee, Kyung-Min

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.09.022

Cited by 42 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…light-reflecting due to different kinds of intraoral tissues, which are said to influence the accuracy, were not simulated. However, some recent studies have shown only minor differences of in vivo versus in vitro complete-arch scans with IOS devices, in terms of accuracy and precision [25,26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives New generation intraoral scanners are promoted to be suitable for digital scans of long-span edentulous spaces and completely edentulous arches; however, the evidence is lacking. The current study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) in partially and completely edentulous arch models and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy. Materials and methods Four different resin models (completely and partially edentulous maxilla and mandible) were scanned, using a new generation IOS device (n = 20 each). Ten scans of each model were performed by an IOS-experienced and an inexperienced operator. An industrial high-precision scanner was employed to obtain reference scans. IOS files of each modeloperator combination, their respective reference scan files (n = 10 each; total = 80), as well as the IOS files from each model generated by the same operator, were superimposed (n = 45; total = 360) to calculate trueness and precision. An ANOVA for mixed models and post hoc t tests for mixed models were used to assess group-wise differences (α = 0.05). Results The median overall trueness and precision were 24.2 μm (IQR 20.7-27.4 μm) and 18.3 μm (IQR 14.4-22.1 μm), respectively. The scans of the inexperienced operator had significantly higher trueness in the edentulous mandibular model (p = 0.0001) and higher precision in the edentulous maxillary model (p = 0.0004). Conclusion The accuracy of IOS for partially and completely edentulous arches in in vitro settings was high. Experience with IOS had small influence on the accuracy of the scans. Clinical relevance IOS with the tested new generation intraoral scanner may be suitable for the fabrication of removable dentures regardless of clinician's experience in IOS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is only that impression taking during orthodontic treatments involves several limitations due to intraoral conditions. Contamination of saliva on the teeth and the presence of various kinds of brackets is one of the intraoral conditions that may have direct impact on the accuracy of the scanned image [16,17]. ere was a study on the effect of water on the surface of dental restorative materials [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Another limitation was the patient-related factors. Sun et al reported that saliva flow, movement of the tongue or the patient, and limited oral space had a strong influence on scanning speed [38,39]. In our study, the first and the last patient was the same person for standardization of measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

Róth

Czigola

Joós-Kovács

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The spread of digital technology in dentistry poses new challenges and goals for dentists. It is important to involve new methods and devices in university education. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve of IOS described by (1) scanning time and (2) image number (count of images made by intraoral scanner during scanning process).Methods Ten dental students of Semmelweis University took part in the study. Dental students took digital study impressions using 3Shape Trios 3® (Copenhagen, Denmark) IOS device. Each student took 10 digital impressions on volunteers (for standardization the first and the last patients was the same for each student). The inclusion criteria of patients were full dentition (except missing third molar) and no prosthetic- restorative treatment. Digital impression taking was preceded by a lecture consisting of two parts: education and training. For standardization, the scanning device was calibrated before impression taking, followed by the registration of patient data. Digital impressions were taken of the upper and lower arches, and the bite was recorded according to the manufacturer's instructions. Total scanning time and image number of intraoral scanning were recorded.Results The difference of scanning time between the first and the tenth digital impressions was significant (p=0.007). The average scanning time of first impressions was 23min 9sec, for tenth impressions it was 15min 28sec. The difference between scanning time of the first and the tenth impressions was 7min 41sec. The average image number of the first impressions was 1964.5, for the tenth impressions it was 1468.6. The difference between number of images of the first and the tenth impressions was 495,9. The curve of image number show decreasing tendency first, then has a trough around the sixth measurement, and rises.Conclusion The learning curve of IOS can be described with scanning time and image number of digital impression. Scanning time decreases as result of practice. Shorter scanning times are accompanied by poorer coverage quality, the operator has to correct by adding extra images represented by the curve of image numbers which turning into increasing tendency after the sixth measurement.Trial registration: The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE TUKEB number: 61/2016).

show abstract

Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: A comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans

Abstract: The reproducibility of in-vivo scanning was comparable with ex-vivo scanning, although it showed a slight difference (0.02 mm) compared with ex-vivo scanning.

Cited by 42 publications

References 12 publications

Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis

Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis

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

Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About