The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

A novel reference model for dental scanning system evaluation: analysis of five intraoral scanners

  • Karakas-Stupar, Irina (Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel) ;
  • Zitzmann, Nicola Ursula (Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel) ;
  • Joda, Tim (Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel)
  • Received : 2021.11.11
  • Accepted : 2022.04.05
  • Published : 2022.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of five intraoral scanners (IOS) using a novel reference model for standardized performance evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Five IOSs (Medit i500, Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4) were used to digitize the reference model, which represented a simplified full-arch situation with four abutment teeth. Each IOS was used five times by an experienced operator, resulting in 25 STL (Standard Tessellation Language) files. STL data were imported into 3D software (Final Surface®) and examined for inter- and intra-group analyses. Deviations in the parameter matching error were calculated. ANOVA F-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied for inter-group comparisons (α = .05); and the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for intra-group comparisons (in % ± SD). RESULTS. Primescan (matching error value: 0.015), Trios 3 (0.016), and Trios 4 (0.018) revealed comparable results with significantly higher accuracy compared to Medit i500 (0.035) and Omnicam (0.028) (P < .001). For intra-group comparison, Trios 4 demonstrated the most homogenous results (CV 15.8%). CONCLUSION. The novel reference model investigated in this study can be used to assess the performance of dental scanning technologies in the daily routine setting and in research settings.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland, for providing the reference model and the use of the IOS Trios 3 and Trios 4, respectively; as well as Dentsply Sirona, Dattwil-Baden, Switzerland, for making the Primescan available. Also, thanks to Dr. Urs Simmen for statistical support and Mr. James Ashmann for English proofreading the final draft of the manuscript.

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. Joda T, Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:e185-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12600
  3. 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.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
  4. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1318-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12982
  5. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: a comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:577-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5938
  6. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1113-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12234
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for fullarch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:422-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077
  10. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision. J Vis Exp 2014;(86):51374.
  11. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
  12. Seo SW, Lee WS, Byun JY, Lee KB. A standardization model based on image recognition for performance evaluation of an oral scanner. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:409-15. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.409
  13. Chiu A, Chen YW, Hayashi J, Sadr A. Accuracy of CADCAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters. Sensors (Basel) 2020;20:1157. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20041157
  14. Bernauer SA, Muller J, Zitzmann NU, Joda T. Influence of preparation design, marginal gingiva location, and tooth morphology on the accuracy of digital impressions for full-crown restorations: an in vitro investigation. J Clin Med 2020;9:3984. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9123984
  15. 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
  16. Kaewbuasa N, Ongthiemsak C. Effect of different arch widths on the accuracy of three intraoral scanners. J Adv Prosthodont 2021;13:205-15. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.4.205
  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. 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
  19. Rutkunas V, Borusevicius R, Liaudanskaite D, Jasinskyte U, Drukteinis S, Bukelskiene V, Mijiritsky E. The effect of different cleaning protocols of polymer-based prosthetic materials on the behavior of human gingival fibroblasts. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17:7753. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217753
  20. Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health 2018;18:117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0580-9
  21. Ferrari M, Keeling A, Mandelli F, Lo Giudice G, Garcia-Godoy F, Joda T. The ability of marginal detection using different intraoral scanning systems: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Am J Dent 2018;31:272-6.
  22. 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
  23. Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0415-0
  24. Tibballs J. Standards for digital dental impressions. Nordic Institute of Dental Materials. 2015. Available from: https://niom.no/standards-for-digital-dental-impressions/.