Comparison of the dimensional and morphological accuracy of three-dimensional digital dental casts digitized using different methods.
Cone-beam computed tomography
Dimensional
Intraoral Scanner
Morphological
Three-dimensional
Journal
Odontology
ISSN: 1618-1255
Titre abrégé: Odontology
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 101134822
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
18
03
2022
accepted:
23
08
2022
pubmed:
7
9
2022
medline:
6
1
2023
entrez:
6
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental casts from plaster cast scanning (PCS), impression scanning (IPS), intraoral scanning (IOS), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning (CCS) methods. The maxillary and mandibular dental casts of 15 patients who needed CBCT scans for oral examination or treatment were digitized via four methods. 12 linear distance measurements of all digital dental casts were selected and acquired with software and compared to those of the reference plaster cast to evaluate the dimensional accuracy. Three-dimensional deviation analysis of the IPS, IOS and CCS groups with respect to the reference PCS group was performed to evaluate the morphological accuracy. The discrepancy in linear distances between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The dimensional accuracies of the PCS (0.06 ± 0.12 mm) and IPS (0.03 ± 0.05 mm) casts were better than those of the IOS (0.37 ± 0.30 mm) and CCS (0.54 ± 0.40 mm) casts. The one-sample t test showed that there were statistically significant differences between the discrepancies in 8 of the linear distances for the PCS group and 9 of the linear distances for the IPS group between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts, with an ideal error of 0.00 (p < 0.05). The sequence of morphological accuracy from good to poor was maxillary and mandibular IPS, mandibular IOS; maxillary IOS; and maxillary and mandibular CCS. The accuracy of the digital dental casts from the PCS and IPS methods was greater than that of IOS and CCS methods. Although accuracy of the digital dental cast from IOS was low, it satisfied the clinical requirements for fixed restorations in small units. The accuracy of the digital dental cast from CCS was poorest and could only be used for procedures with lower accuracy requirements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36068382
doi: 10.1007/s10266-022-00736-2
pii: 10.1007/s10266-022-00736-2
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
165-171Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81801015
Organisme : National Key R&D Program of China
ID : 2018YFB1106900
Organisme : Program for New Clinical Techniques and Therapies of
ID : PKUSSNCT-20B07
Organisme : PKU‑Baidu Fund
ID : 2019BD021
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Society of The Nippon Dental University.
Références
Walker MP, Rondeau M, Petrie C, Tasca A, Williams K. Surface quality and long-term dimensional stability of current elastomeric impression materials after disinfection. J Prosthodont. 2007;16(5):343–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00206.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00206.x
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
Ho CT, Lin HH, Lo LJ. Intraoral scanning and setting up the digital final occlusion in three-dimensional planning of orthognathic surgery: its comparison with the dentalmodel approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(5):1027–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005556 .
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000005556
Rangel FA, Maal TJ, Bronkhorst EM, Breuning KH, Schols JG, Bergé SJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Accuracy and reliability of a novel method for fusion of digital dental casts and cone beam computed tomography scans. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(3): e59130. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059130 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059130
Kim J, Heo G, Lagravere MO. Accuracy of laser-scanned models compared to plaster models and cone-beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(3):443–50. https://doi.org/10.2319/051213-365.1 .
doi: 10.2319/051213-365.1
Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, Oriso K, Kondo H. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: a literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):109–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010
Akyalcin S, Dyer DJ, English JD, Sar C. Comparison of 3-dimensional dental models from different sources: diagnostic accuracy and surface registration analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(6):831–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.08.014 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.08.014
Becker K, Schmucker U, Schwarz F, Drescher D. Accuracy and eligibility of CBCT to digitize dental plaster casts. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(4):1817–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2277-x .
doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2277-x
De Luca CG, Pacheco-Pereira C, Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C, Major PW. Intra- arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12068 .
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12068
Emara A, Sharma N, Halbeisen FS, Msallem B, Thieringer FM. Comparative evaluation of digitization of diagnostic dental cast (plaster) models using different scanning technologies. J Dent (Basel). 2020;8(3):79. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8030079 .
doi: 10.3390/dj8030079
Grunheid T, Patel N, De Felippe NL, Wey A, Gaillard PR, Larson BE. Accuracy, reproducibility, and time efficiency of dental measurements using different technologies. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;145(2):157–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.10.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.10.012
Creed B, Kau CH, English JD, Xia JJ, Lee RP. A Comparison of the accuracy of linear measurements obtained from cone beam computerized tomography images and digital models. Semin Orthod. 2011;17(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010 .
doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010
Im J, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Yu HS, Hwang CJ. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;145(4):434–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.014 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.014
Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136(1):16e11-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.019
Yousef H, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Morton D, Lin WS. Effect of additive manufacturing process and storage condition on the dimensional accuracy and stability of 3D-printed dental casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.028 .
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.028
Joda T, Matthisson L, Zitzmann NU. Impact of aging on the accuracy of 3d-printed dental models: an in vitro investigation. J Clin Med. 2020;9(5):1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9051436 .
doi: 10.3390/jcm9051436
Liczmanski K, Stamm T, Sauerland C, Blanck-Lubarsch M. Accuracy of intraoral scans in the mixed dentition: a prospective non-randomized comparative clinical trial. Head Face Med. 2020;16(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00222-6 .
doi: 10.1186/s13005-020-00222-6
Ye H, Lv L, Liu Y, Liu Y, Zhou Y. Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of two different 3d face-scanning systems. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):213–8.
doi: 10.11607/ijp.4397
Rosati R, De Menezes M, Rossetti A, Sforza C, Ferrario VF. Digital dental cast placement in 3-dimensional, full-face reconstruction: a technical evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;138(1):84–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.035 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.035
Hirota Y, Tawada Y, Komatsu S, Watanabe F. Effect of impression holding time and tray removal speed on the dimensional accuracy of impressions for artificial abutment tooth inclined. Odontology. 2021;109(1):157–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00537-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s10266-020-00537-5
Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):422–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077 .
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv077
Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2015;59(4):236–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002
Hassan B, Couto Souza P, Jacobs R, de Azambuja BS, van der Stelt P. Influence of scanning and reconstruction parameters on quality of three-dimensional surface models of the dental arches from cone beam computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig. 2010;14(3):303–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0291-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00784-009-0291-3
Gamba TO, Oliveira ML, Flores IL, Cruz AD, Almeida SM, Haiter-Neto F, Lopes SL. Influence of cone-beam computed tomography image artifacts on the determination of dental arch measurements. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(2):274–8. https://doi.org/10.2319/040313-255.1 .
doi: 10.2319/040313-255.1
Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM. Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3d surface analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6): e0157713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157713 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157713
Huang Z, Wang XZ, Hou YZ. Novel method of fabricating individual trays for maxillectomy patients by computer-aided design and rapid prototyping. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(2):115–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12183 .
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12183