Imaging Science in Dentistry

Korean Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (대한영상치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of posterior span length on the trueness and precision of 3 intraoral digital scanners: A comparative 3-dimensional in vitro study

  • Received : 2021.03.29
  • Accepted : 2021.06.16
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: This in vitro study measured and compared 3 intraoral scanners' accuracy (trueness and precision) with different span lengths. Materials and Methods: Three master casts were prepared to simulate 3 different span lengths (fixed partial dentures with 3, 4, and 5 units). Each master cast was scanned once with an E3 lab scanner and 10 times with each of the 3 intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Planmeca Emerald, and Primescan AC). Data were stored as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The differences between measurements were compared 3-dimensionally using metrology software. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis by the Tukey honest significant difference test for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the 3 intraoral scanners in trueness and precision (P<0.05). Primescan AC showed the lowest trueness and precision values(36.8 ㎛ and 42.0 ㎛;(39.4 ㎛ and 51.2 ㎛; and 54.9 ㎛ and 52.7 ㎛) followed by Trios 3 (38.9 ㎛ and 53.5 ㎛; 49.9 ㎛ and 59.1 ㎛; and 58.1 ㎛ and 64.5 ㎛) and Planmeca Emerald (60.4 ㎛ and 63.6 ㎛; 61.3 ㎛ and 69.0 ㎛; and 70.8 ㎛ and 74.3 ㎛) for the 3-unit, 4-unit, and 5-unit fixed partial dentures, respectively. Conclusion: Primescan AC had the best trueness and precision, followed by Trios 3 and Planmeca Emerald. Increasing span length reduced the trueness and precession of the 3 scanners; however, their values were within the accepted successful ranges.

Keywords

References

  1. Diker B, Tak O. Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence. J Adv Prosthodont 2020; 12: 299-306. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.299
  2. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114: 403-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
  3. 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; 14: 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Schaefer O, Kuepper H, Sigusch BW, Thompson GA, Hefti AF, Guentsch A. Three-dimensional fit of lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro. J Dent 2013; 41: 271-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.014
  8. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, et al. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2019; 63: 396-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002
  9. Rekow ED. Dental CAD/CAM systems: a 20-year success story. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137 Suppl: 5S-6S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0396
  10. Skramstad MJ. Welcome to Cerec Primescan AC. Int J Comput Dent 2019; 22: 69-78.
  11. Dentalaxess.com [Internet]. 3Shape Trios 3 Intraoral Scanner. Zurich: Dental Axess AG [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://dentalaxess.com/product/3shape-trios/.
  12. 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
  13. Alzahrani SJ, El-Hammali H, Morgano SM, Elkassaby H. Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: a 3D analysis study. J Prosthet Dent(in press).
  14. Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124: 755-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.017
  15. ISO 5725-1:1994 (en). Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions. Geneva: ISO; 1994 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:en.
  16. Osnes CA, Wu JH, Venezia P, Ferrari M, Keeling AJ. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64: 6-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.005
  17. Guth 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
  18. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 26: 101-21.
  19. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123: 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008
  20. 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
  21. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019; 22: 11-9.
  22. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007; 39: 175-91. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
  23. Muller 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: 343-9.
  24. International Organization of Standardization. ISO 12836:2018. Dentistry - digitizing devices for CAD/CAM systems for indirect dental restorations - test methods for assessing accuracy. Geneva: ISO; 2015 [cited 2021 Feb 21]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/68414.html.
  25. Zarone F, Ruggiero G, Di Mauro MI, Spagnuolo G, Ferrari M, Sorrentino R. Accuracy of three impression materials on the totally edentulous maxilla: in vitro/in silico comparative analysis. Materials(Basel) 2020; 13: 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13030515
  26. 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
  27. 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.
  28. Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, Kim HY, Lee DH, Kim JH. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional work-flows. J Prosthodont Res 2019; 63: 25-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.002
  29. Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124: 581-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.023
  30. Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M. Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22: 158-60.
  31. Caputi S, Varvara G. Dimensional accuracy of resultant casts made by a monophase, one-step and two-step, and a novel twostep putty/light-body impression technique: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99: 274-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60061-X
  32. 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
  33. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17: 1201-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0
  34. Rudolph H, Luthardt RG, Walter MH. Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med 2007; 37: 579-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2006.05.006
  35. Trifkovic B, Budak I, Todorovic A, Vukelic D, Lazic V, Puskar T. Comparative analysis on measuring performances of dental intraoral and extraoral optical 3D digitization systems. Measurement 2014; 47: 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2013.08.051
  36. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 2005; 8: 283-94.
  37. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009; 12: 11-28.
  38. Steinhauser-Andresen S, Detterbeck A, Funk C, Krumm M, Kasperl S, Holst A, et al. Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology. J Orofac Orthop 2011; 72: 111-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0015-6
  39. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114: 554-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.001
  40. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0163107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163107
  41. 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
  42. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20: 283-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1513-5
  43. Abad-Coronel C, Valdiviezo OP, Naranjo OB. Intraoral scanning devices applied in fixed prosthodontics. Acta Sci Dent Sci 2019; 3: 44-51.
  44. 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
  45. Park HN, Lim YJ, Yi WJ, Han JS, Lee SP. A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator. J Adv Prosthodont 2018; 10: 58-64. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.58
  46. 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
  47. Uhm SH, Kim JH, Jiang HB, Woo CW, Chang M, Kim KN, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard. Dent Mater J 2017; 36: 27-34. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-064
  48. 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
  49. Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Lauer AW, Patel RB, Ludlow ME, Renne WG. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018; 30: 113-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12371
  50. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19: 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0792-7
  51. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118: 36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024