The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of intraoral scans of edentulous jaws with different generations of intraoral scanners compared to laboratory scans

  • Kontis, Panagiotis (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munchen) ;
  • Guth, Jan-Frederik (Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Health, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main) ;
  • Schubert, Oliver (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munchen) ;
  • Keul, Christine (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital, LMU Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munchen)
  • Received : 2021.06.24
  • Accepted : 2021.10.05
  • Published : 2021.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. Purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the accuracy of different intraoral scans versus laboratory scans of impressions and casts for the digitization of an edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A PEEK model of an edentulous maxilla, featuring four hemispheres on the alveolar ridges in region 13, 17, 23 and 27, was industrially digitized to obtain a reference dataset (REF). Intraoral scans using Cerec Primescan AC (PRI) and Cerec AC Omnicam (OMN), as well as conventional impressions (scannable polyvinyl siloxane) were carried out (n = 25). Conventional impressions (E5I) and referring plaster casts were scanned with the inEOS X5 (E5M). All datasets were exported in STL and analyzed (Geomagic Qualify). Linear and angular differences were evaluated by virtually constructed measurement points in the centers of the hemispheres (P13, P17, P23, P27) and lines between the points (P17-P13, P17-P23, P17-P27). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test were performed to test for normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis-H test, and Mann-Whitney-U test to detect significant differences in trueness, followed by 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to detect significant differences in precision (P < .008). RESULTS. Group PRI showed the highest trueness in linear and angular parameters (P < .001), while group E5I showed the highest precision (P < .001). CONCLUSION. Intraoral scan data obtained using Primescan showed the highest trueness while the indirect digitization of impressions showed the highest precision. To enhance the workflow, indirect digitization of the impression itself appears to be a reasonable technique, as it combines fast access to the digital workflow with the possibility of functional impression of mucosal areas.

Keywords

References

  1. 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
  2. Goodacre CJ, Garbacea A, Naylor WP, Daher T, Marchack CB, Lowry J. CAD/CAM fabricated complete dentures: concepts and clinical methods of obtaining required morphological data. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:34-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60015-8
  3. Al-Fouzan AF, Al-Mejrad LA, Albarrag AM. Adherence of Candida to complete denture surfaces in vitro: a comparison of conventional and CAD/CAM complete dentures. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:402-8. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.402
  4. Srinivasan M, Gjengedal H, Cattani-Lorente M, Moussa M, Durual S, Schimmel M, Muller F. CAD/CAM milled complete removable dental prostheses: an in vitro evaluation of biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and surface roughness. Dent Mater J 2018;37:526-33. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-207
  5. Schweiger J, Stumbaum J, Edelhoff D, Guth JF. Systematics and concepts for the digital production of complete dentures: risks and opportunities. Int J Comput Dent 2018;21:41-56.
  6. Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ. CAD/CAM complete dentures: a review of two commercial fabrication systems. J Calif Dent Assoc 2013;41:407-16.
  7. Baba NZ, AlRumaih HS, Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ. Current techniques in CAD/CAM denture fabrication. Gen Dent 2016;64:23-28.
  8. Steinmassl PA, Klaunzer F, Steinmassl O, Dumfahrt H, Grunert I. Evaluation of currently available CAD/CAM denture systems. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30:116-22. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5031
  9. 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
  10. Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization-a laboratory study. Dent Mater 2014;30:400-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Hack G, Liberman L, Vach K, Tchorz JP, Kohal RJ, Patzelt SBM. Computerized optical impression making of edentulous jaws - an in vivo feasibility study. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:444-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.12.003
  15. Fang JH, An X, Jeong SM, Choi BH. Development of complete dentures based on digital intraoral impressions - Case report. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:116-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.005
  16. Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ. Using intraoral scanning to fabricate complete dentures: first experiences. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:166-70. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5624
  17. Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ. Using intraoral scanning to capture complete denture impressions, tooth positions, and centric relation records. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:377-81. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5741
  18. Lo Russo L, Salamini A. Single-arch digital removable complete denture: a workflow that starts from the intraoral scan. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:20-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.09.004
  19. Unkovskiy A, Wahl E, Zander AT, Huettig F, Spintzyk S. Intraoral scanning to fabricate complete dentures with functional borders: a proof-of-concept case report. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0733-5
  20. Schweiger J, Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Stumbaum J. Virtual evaluation for CAD-CAM-fabricated complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:28-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.015
  21. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:914-20. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209
  22. Rasaie V, Abduo J, Hashemi S. Accuracy of intraoral scanners for recording the denture bearing areas: a systematic review. J Prosthodont 2021;30:520-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13345
  23. O'Toole S, Osnes C, Bartlett D, Keeling A. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment. Dent Mater 2019;35:495-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.012
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Etxaniz O, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:447-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.017
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Chebib N, Kalberer N, Srinivasan M, Maniewicz S, Perneger T, Muller F. Edentulous jaw impression techniques: an in vivo comparison of trueness. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:623-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.016
  36. 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
  37. Braian M, Wennerberg A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:129-36.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.007
  38. Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01254-9
  39. Lytle RB. Soft tissue displacement beneath removable partial and complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1962;12:34-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(62)90005-7
  40. Carlsson GE, Ortorp A, Omar R. What is the evidence base for the efficacies of different complete denture impression procedures? a critical review. J Dent 2013;41:17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.015
  41. Bohannan HM. A critical analysis of the mucostatic principle. J Prosthet Dent 1954;4:232-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(54)90101-8