The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction

  • Anh, Ji-won (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Park, Ji-Man (Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital) ;
  • Chun, Youn-Sic (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kim, Miae (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Kim, Minji (Department of Orthodontics, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University)
  • Received : 2015.03.18
  • Accepted : 2015.07.22
  • Published : 2016.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision of three-dimensional (3D) images acquired using iTero$^{(R)}$(Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) and Trios$^{(R)}$(3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark) digital intraoral scanners, and to evaluate the effects of the severity of tooth irregularities and scanning sequence on precision. Methods: Dental arch models were fabricated with differing degrees of tooth irregularity and divided into 2 groups based on scanning sequence. To assess their precision, images were superimposed and an optimized superimposition algorithm was employed to measure any 3D deviation. The t-test, paired t-test, and one-way ANOVA were performed (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis. Results: The iTero$^{(R)}$ and Trios$^{(R)}$ systems showed no statistically significant difference in precision among models with differing degrees of tooth irregularity. However, there were statistically significant differences in the precision of the 2 scanners when the starting points of scanning were different. The iTero$^{(R)}$ scanner (mean deviation, $29.84{\pm}12.08{\mu}m$) proved to be less precise than the Trios$^{(R)}$ scanner ($22.17{\pm}4.47{\mu}m$). Conclusions: The precision of 3D images differed according to the degree of tooth irregularity, scanning sequence, and scanner type. However, from a clinical standpoint, both scanners were highly accurate regardless of the degree of tooth irregularity.

Keywords

References

  1. Mah J, Hatcher D. Current status and future needs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6 Suppl 1:10-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2003.230.x
  2. White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS. Analysis of intra-arch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:456.e1-9.
  3. Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 2010;20:243-9.
  4. Al Mortadi N, Eggbeer D, Lewis J, Williams RJ. CAD/CAM/AM applications in the manufacture of dental appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:727-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.04.023
  5. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  6. Cha BK, Lee JY, Jost-Brinkmann PG, Yoshida N. Analysis of tooth movement in extraction cases using three-dimensional reverse engineering technology. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:325-31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm019
  7. Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part II. J Orthod 2004;31:154-62. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225020472
  8. Patel N. Integrating three-dimensional digital technologies for comprehensive implant dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2010;141 Suppl 2:20S-4S.
  9. Zhang XJ, He L, Guo HM, Tian J, Bai YX, Li S. Integrated three-dimensional digital assessment of accuracy of anterior tooth movement using clear aligners. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:275-81. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.6.275
  10. Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrao J, Miasiro Junior H, Sanchez-Ayala A, Lagravere MO. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 2009;23:288-95. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242009000300011
  11. Yourtee D, Emery J, Smith RE, Hodgson B. Stereolithographic models of biopolymers. J Mol Graph Model 2000;18:26-8, 59-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-3263(00)00029-2
  12. Normung DDIf. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions (ISO 5725-1:1994). Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH; 1997.
  13. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  14. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  15. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:140-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.018
  16. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:304-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011
  17. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
  18. Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 2009;25:929-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100
  19. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28.
  20. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics-Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Laser Eng 2014;54:203-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
  21. Kusnoto B, Evans CA. Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:342-8. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.128219
  22. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
  23. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
  24. DeLong R, Pintado MR, Ko CC, Hodges JS, Douglas WH. Factors influencing optical 3D scanning of vinyl polysiloxane impression materials. J Prosthodont 2001;10:78-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2001.00078.x

Cited by

  1. 보철 치료 시 디지털 및 전통적 인상채득에 대한 환자 만족도 비교 연구 vol.54, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2016.54.4.379
  2. Analysis on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: The Effects of Mandibular Anterior Interdental Space vol.7, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app7070719
  3. Transfer accuracy of two indirect bonding techniques-an in vitro study with 3D scanned models vol.40, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy006
  4. Comparison of the occlusal contact area of virtual models and actual models: a comparative in vitro study on Class I and Class II malocclusion models vol.18, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0566-7
  5. Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three-dimensional surface analysis vol.19, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-018-0205-5
  6. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning vol.37, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-208
  7. Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback vol.2018, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4103232
  8. Generation of 3D digital models of the dental arches using optical scanning techniques vol.24, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2018.10.006
  9. Workflow description of additively manufactured clear silicone indexes for injected provisional restorations: A novel technique vol.31, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12464
  10. Soft tissue replication in single unit implant impressions-A three dimensional clinical study vol.31, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12481
  11. Precision of the virtual occlusal record vol.89, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2319/092018-684.1
  12. Reliability and validity of miniscrews as references in cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scanner digital models: study on goat heads vol.19, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0952-9
  13. Approach to the Design and Manufacturing of Prosthetic Dental Restorations According to the Rules of Industry 4.0 vol.9, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1520/mpc20200020
  14. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner vol.29, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13135
  15. 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 vol.29, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13148
  16. Effect of Tooth Types on the Accuracy of Dental 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study vol.13, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071744
  17. Dentistry 4.0 Concept in the Design and Manufacturing of Prosthetic Dental Restorations vol.8, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/pr8050525
  18. A comparison of the marginal gaps of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated by two different intraoral scanners vol.65, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12748
  19. Effects of Scanning Strategy and Scanner Type on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: A New Approach for Assessing the Accuracy of Scanned Data vol.29, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13158
  20. Comparative Evaluation of Digitization of Diagnostic Dental Cast (Plaster) Models Using Different Scanning Technologies vol.8, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8030079
  21. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Lighting Conditions on the Mesh Quality of an Intraoral Scanner vol.29, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13205
  22. Fiber‐reinforced composite fixed dental prosthesis using an additive manufactured silicone index vol.32, pp.7, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12628
  23. Accuracy of the Implant Replica Positions on the Complete Edentulous Additive Manufactured Cast vol.29, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13179
  24. Comparison of the transfer accuracy of two digital indirect bonding trays for labial bracket bonding vol.91, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2319/013120-70.1
  25. Analysis of Different Illuminance of the Room Lighting Condition on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of An Intraoral Scanner vol.30, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13276
  26. The Effects of Orthodontic Brackets on the Time and Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking vol.18, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105282
  27. Intraoral scanners vol.152, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2021.05.018
  28. Accuracy of the Intra- and Extra-Oral Scanning Technique for Transferring the Intaglio Surface of a Pontic of Provisional Restorations to Definitive Restorations vol.14, pp.21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216489
  29. Transfer accuracy of four different lingual retainer transfer methods using digital orthodontic models: vol.91, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2319/020921-118.1
  30. Evaluating the Effect of Ambient and Scanning Lights on the Trueness of the Intraoral Scanner vol.30, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13341