The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanner by three-dimensional analysis in single and 3-unit bridge abutment model: In vitro study

단일 수복물과 3본 고정성 수복물 지대치 모델에서 삼차원 분석을 통한 구강 스캐너의 정확도 비교

  • Huang, Mei-Yang (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Son, Keunbada (Department of Dental Science, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Wan-Sun (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute (A3DI), Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 황미양 (경북대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 손큰바다 (경북대학교 치과대학 치의과학과) ;
  • 이완선 (경북대학교 치과대학 첨단치과의료기기개발연구소) ;
  • 이규복 (경북대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2018.12.19
  • Accepted : 2019.01.16
  • Published : 2019.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three types of intraoral scanners and the accuracy of the single abutment and bridge abutment model. Materials and methods: In this study, a single abutment, and a bridge abutment with missing first molar was fabricated and set as the reference model. The reference model was scanned with an industrial three-dimensional scanner and set as reference scan data. The reference model was scanned five times using the three intraoral scanners (CS3600, CS3500, and EZIS PO). This was set as the evaluation scan data. In the three-dimensional analysis (Geomagic control X), the divided abutment region was selected and analyzed to verify the scan accuracy of the abutment. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (${\alpha}=.05$). The accuracy of intraoral scanners was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and post-test was performed using the Pairwise test. The accuracy difference between the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The accuracy according to the intraoral scanner was significantly different (P < .05). The trueness of the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model showed a statistically significant difference and showed better trueness in the single abutment (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the precision (P = .616). Conclusion: As a result of comparing the accuracy of single and bridge abutments, the error of abutment scan increased with increasing scan area, and the accuracy of bridge abutment model was clinically acceptable in three types of intraoral scanners.

목적: 이 연구의 목적은 단일 수복물 지대치와 3본 고정성 수복물 지대치 모델에서 3종류의 구강 스캐너에 따른 정확도를 평가하는 것이다. 재료 및 방법: 본 연구에서는 단일 수복물 지대치와 제1대구치가 상실된 3본 고정성 수복물 지대치를 제작하고, 이를 주모형으로 설정하였다. 제작된 주 모형은 산업용 삼차원 스캐너로 스캔하였고, 이를 참조 스캔 데이터로 설정하였다. 3종류의 구강 스캐너(CS3600, CS3500, 그리고 EZIS PO)를 이용하여 주 모형을 5회 스캔 하였다. 이를 평가 스캔 데이터로 설정하였다. 삼차원 비교분석(Geomagic control X)에서 지대치의 스캔 정확도를 평가하기 위해 분할된 지대치를 선택하여 분석하였다. 통계분석은 SPSS 소프트웨어를 이용하여 분석하였다 (${\alpha}=.05$). 구강 스캐너 정확도는 kruskal-wallis test를 실시하여 비교하였고, pairwise test로 사후 검정을 실시하였다. 단일 수복물 지대치 모델과 3본 고정성 수복물 지대치 모델의 정확도 차이는 mann-whitney U test로 분석하였다. 결과: 구강 스캐너에 따른 정확도의 측정결과는 모두 유의한 차이를 보였다 (P < .05). 그리고 단일 수복물 지대치 모델과 3본 고정성 수복물 지대치 모델의 진도(trueness)는 통계적으로 유의한 차이를 보여주었으며, 단일 수복물 지대치에서 더 좋은 진도를 나타냈다 (P < .05). 정밀도(precision)에서는 유의미한 차이가 없었다 (P = .616). 결론: 단일 수복물과 3본 고정성 수복물 지대치의 정확도를 비교한 결과, 스캔 영역이 늘어날수록 지대치 스캔의 오류는 증가하였고, 3종류의 구강 스캐너에서 3본 고정성 수복물 지대치 모델의 스캔 정확도는 임상적으로 허용 가능하다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:555-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002
  2. Wesemann C, Muallah J, Mah J, Bumann A. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Quintessence Int 2017;48:41-50.
  3. Kang BG, Kim HJ, Chung CH. Accuracy of the CT guided implant template by using an intraoral scanner according to the edentulous distance. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2017;55:1-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2017.55.1.1
  4. Sedda M, Casarotto A, Raustia A, Borracchini A. Effect of storage time on the accuracy of casts made from different irreversible hydrocolloids. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:59-66. https://doi.org/10.5005/jcdp-9-4-59
  5. 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.
  6. Mah J, Hatcher D. Current status and future needs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:10-6. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2003.230.x
  7. White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS. Analysis of intraarch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on conebeam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:456.e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.09.019
  8. Kwon HJ, Kim KK, Yi WJ. Comparison of digital models generated from three-dimensional optical scanner and cone beam computed tomography. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2016;32:60-9. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2016.32.1.60
  9. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touchprobe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.01.003
  10. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
  11. Park JH, Seol JH, Lee JJ, Lee SP, Lim YJ. Comparative study on quality of scanned images from varying materials and surface conditions of standardized model for dental scanner evaluation. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2018;34:104-15. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2018.34.2.104
  12. Felton DA, Kanoy BE, Bayne SC, Wirthman GP. Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:357-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90225-L
  13. ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions. International Standards Organization (ISO); Geneva; Switzerland, 1994. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en
  14. Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:253-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.021
  15. Bohner LOL, De Luca Canto G, Marcio BS, Lagana DC, Sesma N, Tortamano Neto P. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:617-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.11.018
  16. Vecsei B, Joos-Kovacs G, Borbely J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:177-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.001
  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. 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.
  19. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
  20. 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
  21. Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:755-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007
  22. 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
  23. Kim KR, Seo K, Kim S. Comparison of the accuracy of digital impressions and traditional impressions: Systematic review. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2018;56:258-68. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2018.56.3.258
  24. 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
  25. Grunheid 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;146:673-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
  26. Aragon ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:429-34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw033
  27. Choi JH, Lim YJ, Lee WJ, Han JS, Lee SP. Review of recent developments for intra-oral scanners. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2015;31:112-25. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2015.31.2.112
  28. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:221-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018
  29. Son K, Lee WS, Lee KB. Prediction of the learning curves of 2 dental CAD software programs. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:95-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.004
  30. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:895-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035
  31. 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;17:1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0228-6
  32. 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
  33. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1461-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
  34. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015;59:236-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002
  35. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:225-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002

Cited by

  1. 교합면의 교모형태에 따른 치과용 모형 스캐너의 정확도 평가 vol.42, pp.4, 2019, https://doi.org/10.14347/jtd.2020.42.4.313