The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A new method to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch: A pilot study

  • Iturrate, Mikel (Department of Business Management, Gipuzkoa Faculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU) ;
  • Lizundia, Erlantz (Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Bilbao Faculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU) ;
  • Amezua, Xabier (Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Gipuzkoa Faculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU) ;
  • Solaberrieta, Eneko (Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Gipuzkoa Faculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU)
  • Received : 2019.07.10
  • Accepted : 2019.12.12
  • Published : 2019.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of three intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch and evaluate the feasibility of the assessment methodology for further in vivo analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A specific measurement pattern was fabricated and measured using a coordinate measuring machine for the assessment of control distances and angles. Afterwards, the pattern was placed and fixed in replica of an upper jaw for their subsequent scans (10 times) using 3 intraoral scanners, namely iTero Element1, Trios 3, and True Definition. 4 reference distances and 5 angles were measured and compared with the controls. Trueness and precision were assessed for each IOS: trueness, as the deviation of the measures from the control ones, while precision, as the dispersion of measurements in each reference parameter. These measurements were carried out using software for analyzing 3-dimensional data. Data analysis software was used for statistical and measurements analysis (α=.05). RESULTS. Significant differences (P<.05) were found depending on the intraoral scanner used. Best trueness values were achieved with iTero Element1 (mean from 10 ± 7 ㎛ to 91 ± 63 ㎛) while the worst values were obtained with Trios3 (mean from 42 ± 23 ㎛ to 174 ± 77 ㎛). Trueness analysis in angle measurements, as well as precision analysis, did not show conclusive results. CONCLUSION. iTero Element1 was more accurate than the current versions of Trios3 and True Definition. Importantly, the proposed methodology is considered reliable for analyzing accuracy in any dental arch length and valid for assessing both trueness and precision in an in vivo study.

Keywords

References

  1. Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a threedimensional photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995;6:172-80. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060306.x
  2. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70229-5
  3. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:297-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(66)90082-5
  4. Dedmon HW. Disparity in expert opinions on size of acceptable margin openings. Oper Dent 1982;7:97-101.
  5. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-6.
  6. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010
  7. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:466-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01027.x
  8. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:648-653. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12853
  9. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x
  10. Bacchi A, Consani RL, Mesquita MF, Dos Santos MB. Effect of framework material and vertical misfit on stress distribution in implant-supported partial prosthesis under load application: 3-D finite element analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:1243-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.757644
  11. 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
  12. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-3. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258
  13. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-4. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
  14. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595.
  15. Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a doubleblinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:291-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1504-6
  16. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 2016;25:282-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12410
  17. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:111-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
  18. Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:542-51. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.23
  19. Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, Pigozzo MN, Laganá DC, Sesma N. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:214-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.007
  20. Burhardt L, Livas C, Kerdijk W, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:261-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.027
  21. Hack GD, Patzelt SB. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: An in-vitro investigation. American Dent Assoc 2015;10:1-5.
  22. Omar Ali A. Accuracy of digital impressions achieved from five different digital impression system. J Prosthodontics 2015;5:2-6.
  23. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012;7:e43312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043312
  24. Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:450-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.01.005
  25. Güth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:1445-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4
  26. 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;17:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
  27. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computeraided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:1133-40. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.87
  28. 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
  29. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17.
  30. Güth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1487-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1626-x
  31. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015
  32. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:799-806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1590-5
  33. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  34. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1495-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y
  35. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78:466-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0103-3
  36. 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:e0157713. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157713
  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002
  38. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006
  39. Shim JS, Lee JS, Lee JY, Choi YJ, Shin SW, Ryu JJ. Effect of software version and parameter settings on the marginal and internal adaptation of crowns fabricated with the CAD/CAM system. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23:515-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150081
  40. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x

Cited by

  1. Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update vol.9, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030688
  2. Use of measuring gauges for in vivo accuracy analysis of intraoral scanners: a pilot study vol.13, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.4.191
  3. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review vol.21, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2