Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible

Hayama, Hironari; Fueki, Kenji; Wadachi, Juro; Wakabayashi, Noriyuki

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2018.01.003

Cited by 106 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the total deviations for the Trios 3 Pod and the Primescan in this clinical study were higher compared with the laboratory data reported by Ender et al [9] and Iturrate et al [33]. This could be due to different evaluation methods (percentiles) and furthermore explained by the in vivo conditions and the presence of saliva, oral structures, and patient movement(s) that may influence accuracy [34][35][36].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update

Schmidt

Klussmann

Wöstmann

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy (trueness/precision) of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic reference aid served as a reference dataset. Four digital impressions (Trios3Cart, Trios3Pod, Trios4Pod, and Primescan) and one CVI were investigated in five patients. Scan data were analyzed using three-dimensional analysis software and conventional models using a coordinate measurement machine. The transfer accuracy between the reference aid and the impression methods were compared. Differences with p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Overall, mean ± standard deviation (SD) transfer accuracy ranged from 24.6 ± 17.7 µm (CVI) to 204.5 ± 182.1 µm (Trios3Pod). The Primescan yielded the lowest deviation for digital impressions (33.8 ± 31.5 µm), followed by Trios4Pod (65.2 ± 52.9 µm), Trios3Cart (84.7 ± 120.3 µm), and Trios3Pod. Within the limitations of this study, current IOS equipped with the latest software versions demonstrated less deviation for short-span distances compared with the conventional impression technique. However, for long-span distances, the conventional impression technique provided the lowest deviation. Overall, currently available IOS systems demonstrated improvement regarding transfer accuracy of full-arch scans in patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update

Schmidt

Klussmann

Wöstmann

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[19] ere have been significant developments in intraoral scanner technology and its design that they overcame many limitations since then [25]. ere have been numerous studies since 2015 on the accuracy of intraoral scanner images in various prosthetic and orthodontic conditions [11,[26][27][28][29][30][31]. However, most of them were with dry models.…”

Section: D Superimposition Analysis (Geomagic Verify ™ ) Showsmentioning

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

“…The direct technique is considered more accurate, in terms of trueness and precision (ISO), 39 to produce prosthetic products through the digital work-flow. The digital workflow allows the use of industrially precured fiberreinforced composite resins with superior mechanical properties.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>CAD/CAM Customized Glass Fiber Post and Core With Digital Intraoral Impression: A Case Report</p>

Libonati¹,

Taranto²,

Gallusi³

et al. 2020

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Video abstractPoint your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use: https://youtu.be/W9qD2b7Eg4oBackground: After endodontic treatment, a proper restorative technique is necessary to ensure coronal seal and protection of residual dental structure; teeth which have lost two or more walls need to be restored with posts to increase retention and stability of final restoration. Posts can be distinguished in prefabricated and customized, which are manufactured by lost wax technique or CAD-CAM.Purpose: Digital dentistry has been developed to increase workflow precision and to accelerate production process; use of CAD-CAM to realize customized posts was limited to scanning plaster models obtained from traditional impressions. Patients and Methods: In the reported case an intraoral scan was used to mill a post and core restoration on an endodontically treated inferior premolar; this operative protocol was based on previous in vitro experiments that confirmed the ability of 3shape Trios scanner to read post-space up to 9 mm in depth.Results: The digital technique allows us to convert the concave surface of the root canal into the convex surface of the post, and realize an anatomical post and core that improves the biomechanics of the endodontically treated tooth reducing the possibility of root fractures. Conclusion: The use of an intraoral digital scanner represents an opportunity for the clinician as it speeds up the production of an anatomical post and core restorations.

show abstract

Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible

Abstract: Digital impressions are partially comparable to conventional impressions in terms of accuracy; the use of a larger scanning head may improve the accuracy for removable partial denture fabrication.

Cited by 106 publications

References 29 publications

Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update

Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update

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

<p>CAD/CAM Customized Glass Fiber Post and Core With Digital Intraoral Impression: A Case Report</p>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About