Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study

Braian, Michael; Wennerberg, Ann

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.007

Cited by 82 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In many studies, the accuracy of the scanning data was evaluated for application in various treatment methods and to test intraoral scanners under limited conditions in the oral cavity [7,8,10,[13][14][15][16][17]. The accuracy of the CAD test model (CTM) obtained with an intraoral scanner is evaluated through three-dimensional (3D) comparison with the CAD reference model (CRM) obtained with a scanner with very high accuracy [7,8,10,[13][14][15]. Using a 3D inspection software, the CTM and CRM are superimposed to the most similar position, and the mean of the distance of all point clouds of 3D modeling of CRM and CTM was used to calculate the root mean square (RMS) [8,13,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using a 3D inspection software, the CTM and CRM are superimposed to the most similar position, and the mean of the distance of all point clouds of 3D modeling of CRM and CTM was used to calculate the root mean square (RMS) [8,13,15]. In addition, the RMS value is the standard for the evaluation of the accuracy of the scanning data in many studies [13][14][15]17]. The previous studies found that deviation of more than 100 µm from the complete arch resulted in an inaccurate fit of the final restoration in the maxilla and mandible [3,9] Also, an allowable range of less than 100 µm was proposed as an acceptable cement space for the prosthesis [3,18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Kang

Lee

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of five different intraoral scanners and two different laboratory scanners for a complete arch. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained using industrial scanners. A CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using five types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500) and two types of laboratory scanners (3shape E1 and DOF) (N = 20). In addition, the CRM and CTM were superimposed using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems) and 3D analysis was performed. In the 3D analysis, the accuracy was measured by the type of tooth, the anterior and posterior region, and the overall region. As for the statistical analysis of the accuracy, the differences were confirmed using the Kruskal–Wallis H test (α = 0.05). Also, the differences between the groups were analyzed by post-hoc tests including Mann–Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction method (α = 0.0017). There was a significant difference in the scanning accuracy of the complete arch according to the type of scanner (P < 0.001). The i500 Group showed the lowest accuracy (143 ± 69.6 µm), while the 3Shape E1 Group was the most accurate (14.3 ± 0.3 µm). Also, the accuracy was lower in the posterior region than in the anterior region in all types of scanners (P < 0.001). Scanning accuracy of the complete arch differed depending on the type of scanner. While three types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios3) can be recommended for scanning of a complete arch, the two remaining types of intraoral scanners (Trios2 and i500) cannot be recommended.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Kang

Lee

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The introduction of intraoral scanners and their combination with dental computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems has enabled the chairside production of prostheses [1][2][3][4]. As such CAD/CAM systems do not require a working model to be fabricated, prostheses are produced rapidly, which reduces the patient treatment time [1][2][3]. Lithium disilicate ceramics are widely used for dental prostheses because they are aesthetic materials with a short sintering time [4,5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Trueness and Surface Microhardness on the Fitness of Ceramic Crowns

Lee

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the fitness, surface microhardness, and trueness of crowns fabricated from three types of dental ceramic blocks (HASS Rosetta, IPS e.max CAD, and VITA Suprinity) and analyze the correlations between them. A crown was first designed in computer-aided design (CAD) software. To create a crown designed model (CDM), the design file was extracted from the CAD software, and a lithium disilicate block was processed from the file with a milling machine. To create a crown scanned model (CSM), the inside of the fabricated crown was digitized using a contact scanner. Using three-dimensional (3D) inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems), the CDM and CSM were then superimposed, and their 3D trueness was analyzed. To measure the surface microhardness of the blocks, the specimens were polished and subjected to the Vickers hardness test. The fitness of the fabricated crowns was evaluated by applying a modified silicone replica technique. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the correlations between trueness, surface microhardness, and fitness. In addition, the significance of differences between the three types of dental ceramic blocks was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant differences in the trueness, surface microhardness, and marginal fit were observed between ceramic blocks of different types. There were also positive correlations between trueness, surface microhardness, marginal fit, and internal fit. While the marginal fit of crowns fabricated from each of the three types of ceramic blocks was in the clinically permitted range (<120 µm), there were differences in the trueness and surface microhardness, depending on the type of block. However, crowns fabricated from each of the three materials have surface microhardness that is clinically applicable.

show abstract

“…However, often the conservative partial coverage design can be more complex in geometry, making it more difficult to scan when compared to the full coverage design 13 . Besides the presence or absence of adjacent teeth and preparation design, intraoral scanners play an important role in the accuracy of the impression and consequently the fit and marginal integrity of the definitive restoration 5,6,14‐17 . Some intraoral scanners use zinc oxide or titanium oxide powders in the scanning protocol.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 Besides the presence or absence of adjacent teeth and preparation design, intraoral scanners play an important role in the accuracy of the impression and consequently the fit and marginal integrity of the definitive restoration. 5,6,[14][15][16][17] Some intraoral scanners use zinc oxide or titanium oxide powders in the scanning protocol. However, recent intraoral scanners usually do not require powder in their scanning protocol and seem to have comparable or better accuracy to that of the powdered protocol.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ammoun

Suprono

Goodacre

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study

Cited by 82 publications

References 20 publications

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Effects of Trueness and Surface Microhardness on the Fitness of Ceramic Crowns

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About