The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Effect of different arch widths on the accuracy of three intraoral scanners

  • Kaewbuasa, Narin (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University) ;
  • Ongthiemsak, Chakree (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University)
  • Received : 2021.06.15
  • Accepted : 2021.08.09
  • Published : 2021.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of three intraoral scanner (IOS) systems with three different dental arch widths. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three dental models with different intermolar widths (small, medium, and large) were attached to metal bars of different lengths (30, 40, and 50 mm). The bars were measured with a coordinate measuring machine and used as references. Three IOSs were compared: TRIOS 3 (TRI), True Definition (TD), and Dental Wings (DW). The relative length and angular deviation of both ends of the metal bars from the scan data set (n = 15) were calculated and analyzed. RESULTS. Comparing among scanners in terms of trueness, the relative length deviation of DW in the small (1.28%) and medium (1.08%) arches were significantly higher than TRI (0.46% and 0.48%) and TD (0.33% and 0.18%). The angular deviation of DW in the small (1.75°) and medium (1.83°) arches were also significantly greater than TRI (0.63° and 0.40°) and TD (0.55° and 0.89°). Comparing within scanner, the large arch of DW showed better accuracy than other arch sizes (P < .05). On the other hand, the larger arch of TD presented a greater tendency of angular deviation in terms of trueness. No significant differences were found in terms of trueness between the arch widths of TRI group. CONCLUSION. The different widths of the dental arches can affect the accuracy of some intraoral scanners in full arch scan.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by a research grant from the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Thailand, and Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University.

References

  1. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:101-29.
  2. 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
  3. Logozzo S, Zanetti E, 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
  4. 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
  5. Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:354-62. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
  6. Guth 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
  7. 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
  8. Rehmann P, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B. Intraoral scanning systems: need for maintenance. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30:27-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4976
  9. 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
  10. Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:107-13. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5643
  11. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. 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
  12. Treesh JC, Liacouras PC, Taft RM, Brooks DI, Raiciulescu S, Ellert DO, Grant GT, Ye L. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:382-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.005
  13. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, Stellini E. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Commer P, Bourauel C, Maier K, Jager A. Construction and testing of a computer-based intraoral laser scanner for determining tooth positions. Med Eng Phys 2000;22:625-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1350-4533(00)00076-X
  18. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:184-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:853-62. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3343
  22. Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS One 2016;11:e0158800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158800
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:851-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5
  26. 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
  27. Keul C, Guth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24:735-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2
  28. Pramanik A, Basak AK, Littlefair G, Debnath S, Prakash C, Singh MA, Marla D, Singh RK. Methods and variables in electrical discharge machining of titanium alloy - a review. Heliyon 2020;6:e05554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05554
  29. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:313-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12218
  30. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
  31. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Treder J, Nowak A. Arch width changes from 6 weeks to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:401-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)80022-4
  32. Park JM, Kim RJ, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:113-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.025
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Rutkunas V. Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: a comparative clinical study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:271-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.271