Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study.
3D systems
Accuracy
Intraoral scanners
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jul 2022
04 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
19
01
2022
accepted:
03
05
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
7
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of the present in vivo study was to compare the accuracy, in terms of trueness, between full-arch digital impressions of different intraoral scanning systems, using as a reference the ideality of the conventional impression technique. Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) two-step technique impressions of 27 subjects were taken, and the stone casts were scanned using desktop scanners R500 3Shape. For each arch, in vivo scans were taken with intraoral scanners Carestream CS3600, CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3Shape. All the files were compared, superimposing them on the reference model to calculate the total 3D and 2D deviations. The efficiency of the digital and conventional workflows was evaluated by measuring the work time in minutes. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (R Core Team 2020) with a p-value < 0.05. The three intraoral scanners differed from the PVS impression by differences of the order of 100-200 µm, and there was a trend of greater imprecision in the molar area in both dental arches. In comparison with PVS technique, CEREC tended to reduce the size of the impression, Trios presented the trend of greater precision, and Carestream showed minor differences the transversal distance. The areas of greatest discrepancy both in excess and in defect with respect to the PVS impression were the molar areas and incisal margins. Trios 3Shape recorded the shortest times and therefore with a more performing speed. The Trios 3Shape was found to be the most accurate single-tooth scanner, while the Carestream CS 3600 showed better inter-arch diameter performance compared to PVS impressions. The 3D and 2D analyses showed a trend of greater distortion of the impressions compared to the conventional one in the molar region.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the present in vivo study was to compare the accuracy, in terms of trueness, between full-arch digital impressions of different intraoral scanning systems, using as a reference the ideality of the conventional impression technique.
METHODS
METHODS
Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) two-step technique impressions of 27 subjects were taken, and the stone casts were scanned using desktop scanners R500 3Shape. For each arch, in vivo scans were taken with intraoral scanners Carestream CS3600, CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3Shape. All the files were compared, superimposing them on the reference model to calculate the total 3D and 2D deviations. The efficiency of the digital and conventional workflows was evaluated by measuring the work time in minutes. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (R Core Team 2020) with a p-value < 0.05.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The three intraoral scanners differed from the PVS impression by differences of the order of 100-200 µm, and there was a trend of greater imprecision in the molar area in both dental arches. In comparison with PVS technique, CEREC tended to reduce the size of the impression, Trios presented the trend of greater precision, and Carestream showed minor differences the transversal distance. The areas of greatest discrepancy both in excess and in defect with respect to the PVS impression were the molar areas and incisal margins. Trios 3Shape recorded the shortest times and therefore with a more performing speed.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The Trios 3Shape was found to be the most accurate single-tooth scanner, while the Carestream CS 3600 showed better inter-arch diameter performance compared to PVS impressions. The 3D and 2D analyses showed a trend of greater distortion of the impressions compared to the conventional one in the molar region.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35781850
doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00416-5
pii: 10.1186/s40510-022-00416-5
pmc: PMC9250910
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Han KU, Vig KWL, Weintraub JA, Vig PS, Kowalski CJ. Consistency of orthodontic treatment decisions relative to diagnostic records. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100:212–9.
doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70058-5
Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121–8.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101–29.
pubmed: 26110925
Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313–21.
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218
Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics—part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Optic Lasers Eng. 2014;54(3):203–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Caponi M, Governi L, Blois L. A comparative analysis of intraoral 3D digital scanners for restorative dentistry. Int J Med Tech. 2011. https://doi.org/10.5580/1b90 .
doi: 10.5580/1b90
Quimby ML, Vig KW, Rashid RG, Firestone AR. The accuracy and reliability of measurements made on computer-based digital models. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(3):298–303.
pubmed: 15264638
Marcel T. Three-dimensional on-screen virtual models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119:666–8.
doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.116502
D’Apuzzo F, Perillo L, Carrico CK, Castroflorio T, Grassia V, Lindauer SJ, Shroff B. Clear aligner treatment: different perspectives between orthodontists and general dentists. Prog Orthod. 2019;20:10.
doi: 10.1186/s40510-019-0263-3
De Felice ME, Nucci L, Fiori A, Flores-Mir C, Perillo L, Grassia V. Accuracy of interproximal enamel reduction during clear aligner treatment. Prog Orthod. 2020;21(1):28.
doi: 10.1186/s40510-020-00329-1
Dekel E, Nucci L, Weill T, Flores-Mir C, Becker A, Perillo L, Chaushu S. Impaction of maxillary canines and its effect on the position of adjacent teeth and canine development: a cone-beam computed tomography study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021;159(2):e135–47.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.10.015
Cozzani M, Sadri D, Nucci L, Jamilian P, Pirhadirad AP, Jamilian A. The effect of Alexander, Gianelly, Roth, and MBT bracket systems on anterior retraction: a 3-dimensional finite element study. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(3):1351–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03016-6
Hajeer MY, Millett DT. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod. 2004;31:62–70.
doi: 10.1179/146531204225011346
Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, Sasamoto S, Iijima M, Mizoguchi I. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J. 2018;37(4):628–33. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-208 .
doi: 10.4012/dmj.2017-208
pubmed: 29669951
Chalmers EV, McIntyre GT, Wang W, Gillgrass T, Martin CB, Mossey PA. Intraoral 3D scanning or dental impressions for the assessment of dental arch relationships in cleft care: which is superior? Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2016;53(5):568–77.
doi: 10.1597/15-036
Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(4):343–9.
pubmed: 26824085
Pellitteri F, Brucculeri L, Spedicato GA, Siciliani G, Lombardo L. Comparison of the accuracy of digital face scans obtained by two different scanners. Angle Orthod. 2021;91:641–9.
doi: 10.2319/092720-823.1
Chiu A, Chen YW, Hayashi J, Sadr A. Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters. Sensors (Basel). 2020;20(4):1157.
doi: 10.3390/s20041157
Camcı H, Salmanpour F. Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020;158(5):759–66.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.03.022
Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 1972;62(3):296–309.
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0
Lenth R, Singmann H, Love J, Buerkner P, Herve M. Emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version. 2018;1:3.
Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H, Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;30(14):10.
doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
Martin CB, Chalmers EV, McIntyre GT, Cochrane HS, Mossey PA. Orthodontic scanners: what’s available? J Orthod. 2015;42(2):136–43.
doi: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001
Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. Journal Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):85–95.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008
Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):673–82.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
Means CR, Flenniken IE. Gagging—a problem in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1970;23(6):614–20.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(70)90224-6
Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(3):101–21.
Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Invest. 2014;18:1687–94.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(3):313–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: a clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(3):400–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.022
Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(3):107–13.
doi: 10.11607/ijp.5643
Winkler J, Gkantidis N. Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1172.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58075-7
Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018;69:110–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006
Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent. 2016;55:68–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002
Haddadi Y, et al. Accuracy of intra-oral scans compared to conventional impression in vitro. Prim Dent J. 2019;8:34–9.
doi: 10.1308/205016819827601491