Trueness and Precision of Three-Dimensional Digitizing Intraoral Devices

Mutwalli, Hussam; Braian, Michael; Mahmood, Deyar Jallal Hadi; Larsson, Christel

doi:10.1155/2018/5189761

Cited by 28 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The increasing inaccuracies of the teeth 24 and 26 could be explained due to the longer scanning path. Similar results were also reported by (18) and (19). These results were confirmed in the in-vivo part of the present study.…”

Section: Digital Impressionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…For the patient 1, the highest deviation could be observed between the implant in regio 36 and the implant in regio 46, this was likewise the longest scanning distance. Patient 3 also showed the greatest inaccuracies between the longest distance (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25). In contrast to the in-vitro part, however, the digital impressions achieved partially results more precise.…”

Section: Digital Impressionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Complex implant treatments have steadily increased within implant prosthodontics. Based on the lower implant mobility, implant impressions need high accuracy in the model transfer to receive a high passive fit within the final prosthodontic restoration. To analyze the accurate 3-dimensional (3D) inter-implant-positions, a reference point is indispensable. However, there is no reference in the patients mouth, so the aim of the present study was to develop a new method based on a custom-made-measuring-aid (CMA) to assess the inter implant dimensions (InID) in patients. Material and Methods: Initially an implant master model (IMM/patient equivalent) was digitized by computed tomography. A CMA was fixed on the impression posts and the inter implant dimensions (InID) were recorded with a coordinate measurement machine (CMM). For comparison to conventional and digital impression techniques, 10 impressions per technique were taken. InIDs for the IMM, the CMA and the two impression techniques were compared. To give a proof of principle, the new 3D-method was applied to three patients as pilot cases. Results for trueness and precision were analyzed by pairwise comparisons (p< .05). All data were subjected to univariate ANOVA. Results: Mean deviation for InID ranged from 10.3±18μm(CMA) to 41.7±36μm(conventional). There were partially significant differences for InID between the CMA and the different impression techniques. There were no significant differences for InID within the CMA. The InID in the in-vivo evaluation ranged from 42.3μm to 376.7μm(digital) and from 58.3μm to 274.0μm(conventional). There were partially significant differences between the techniques. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, with the developed method using a CMA it is possible to assess the true 3D-InID with a decisive higher accuracy than possible with a conventional or digital implant impression. Overall, the CMA in this study generated results that were deemed clinically useful for the investigated inter implant positions.

show abstract

Section: Digital Impressionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Digital Impressionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mathematical error increased in the transition from single crown to partial prosthesis up to full-arch, both in trueness and in precision. A similar study was done by Braian et al [51], wherein they studied the trueness and precision under repeatable conditions for different IOSs when scanning fully edentulous arches with multiple implants, and they found low precision when scanning fully edentulous arches with multiple implants. This result is similar to our study: as the scanning length increased, the accuracy decreased.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Amornvit

Sanohkan

2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Face scanners promise wide applications in medicine and dentistry, including facial recognition, capturing facial emotions, facial cosmetic planning and surgery, and maxillofacial rehabilitation. Higher accuracy improves the quality of the data recorded from the face scanner, which ultimately, will improve the outcome. Although there are various face scanners available on the market, there is no evidence of a suitable face scanner for practical applications. The aim of this in vitro study was to analyze the face scans obtained from four scanners; EinScan Pro (EP), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (EP+) (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), iPhone X (IPX) (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA), and to compare scans obtained from various scanners with the control (measured from Vernier caliper). This should help to identify the appropriate scanner for face scanning. A master face model was created and printed from polylactic acid using the resolution of 200 microns on x, y, and z axes and designed in Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The face models were 3D scanned with four scanners, five times, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations; EinScan Pro (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China) using Shining Software, iPhone X (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA) using Bellus3D Face Application (Bellus3D, version 1.6.2, Bellus3D, Inc. Campbell, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA). Scan data files were saved as stereolithography (STL) files for the measurements. From the STL files, digital face models are created in the computer using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). Various measurements were measured five times from the reference points in three axes (x, y, and z) using a digital Vernier caliper (VC) (Mitutoyo 150 mm Digital Caliper, Mitutoyo Co., Kanagawa, Japan), and the mean was calculated, which was used as the control. Measurements were measured on the digital face models of EP, EP+, IPX, and PM using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The descriptive statistics were done from SPSS version 20 (IBM Company, Chicago, USA). One-way ANOVA with post hoc using Scheffe was done to analyze the differences between the control and the scans (EP, EP+, IPX, and PM). The significance level was set at p = 0.05. EP+ showed the highest accuracy. EP showed medium accuracy and some lesser accuracy (accurate until 10 mm of length), but IPX and PM showed the least accuracy. EP+ showed accuracy in measuring the 2 mm of depth (diameter 6 mm). All other scanners (EP, IPX, and PM) showed less accuracy in measuring depth. Finally, the accuracy of an optical scan is dependent on the technology used by each scanner. It is recommended to use EP+ for face scanning.

show abstract

“…e simulator contributes to the higher accuracy of IOS. Mutwalli et al [24] studied the trueness and precision of different IOS when scanning fully edentulous arch with multiple implants. ey found that there were significant differences between all IOS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Studying the Optical 3D Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: An In Vitro Study

Amornvit

Sanohkan

Peampring

2020

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are various scanners available in dental practice with various accuracies. The aim of this study was to compare the 3D capturing accuracy of scans obtained from Trios 3 and Dental Wings scanner. A reference mandibular model was printed from FormLab with reference points in three axes (X, Y, and XY and Z). The printed model was scanned 5 times with 3 scans: normal scan by Trios 3 (Trios 3A), high-resolution scan by Trios 3 (Trios 3B), and normal scan by Dental Wings. After scan, the stereolithography (stl) files were generated. Then, the measurements were made from the computer software using Rhinoceros 3D (Rhino, Robert McNeel & Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The measurements made with digital caliper were taken as control. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA with post hoc using Sheffe (P<0.01). Trios 3 presented higher accuracy than Dental Wings and high resolution showed better results. The Dental Wings showed less accuracy at the measurements >50 mm of length and >30 mm in width. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) of control with the Trios 3A and Trios 3B. Similarly, for the measurements in Z-axis, there was no significant difference of control with each scan (Trios 3A, Trios 3B, and Dental Wings). Accuracy of the scan is affected by the length of the scanning area and scanning pattern. It is less recommended to Dental Wings scan >3-unit prosthesis and that crosses the midline.

show abstract

Trueness and Precision of Three-Dimensional Digitizing Intraoral Devices

Cited by 28 publications

References 17 publications

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

The Accuracy of Digital Face Scans Obtained from 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Studying the Optical 3D Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About