Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Reproducibility of Linear Measurements on Digital Models among Intraoral Scanners, Desktop Scanners, and Cone-beam Computed Tomography

  • Jo, Deuk-Won (Department of Prosthodontics, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Mijoo (Restorative Research Laboratory, Section of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of California Los Angeles) ;
  • Kim, Reuben H. (Restorative Research Laboratory, Section of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of California Los Angeles) ;
  • Yi, Yang-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Lee, Nam-Ki (Department of Orthodontics, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Yun, Pil-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
  • Received : 2021.09.05
  • Accepted : 2022.01.05
  • Published : 2022.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Intraoral scanners, desktop scanners, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are being used in a complementary way for diagnosis and treatment planning. Limited patient-based results are available about dimensional reproducibility among different three-dimensional imaging systems. This study aimed to evaluate dimensional reproducibility among patient-derived digital models created from an intraoral scanner, desktop scanner, and two CBCT systems. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine arches from sixteen patients who were candidates for implant treatments were enrolled. Different types of CBCT systems (KCT and VCT) were used before and after the surgery. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken on the enrolled arches after the healing period. Gypsum casts were fabricated and scanned with an intraoral scanner (CIOS) and desktop scanner (MDS). Four test groups of digital models, each from CIOS, MDS, KCT, and VCT, respectively, were compared to the reference gypsum cast group. For comparison of linear measurements, intercanine and intermolar widths and left and right canine to molar lengths were measured on individual gypsum cast and digital models. All measurements were triplicated, and the averages were used for statistics. Bland-Altman plots were drawn to assess the degree of agreement between each test group with the reference gypsum cast group. A linear mixed model was used to analyze the fixed effect of the test groups compared to the reference group (α=0.05). Result: The Bland-Altman plots showed that the bias of each test group was -0.07 mm for CIOS, -0.07 mm for MDS, -0.21 mm for VCT, and -0.25 mm for KCT. The linear mixed model did not show significant differences between the test and reference groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The linear distances measured on the digital models created from CIOS, MDS, and two CBCT systems showed slightly larger than the references but clinically acceptable reproducibility for diagnosis and treatment planning.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Industrial Strategic Technology Development Program (Grant No. 10049732) funded by the Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy (MOTIE) of Korea and Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (Grant. No. 02-2021-0001).

References

  1. Emir F, Ayyildiz S. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 434-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.03.001
  2. Giachetti L, Sarti C, Cinelli F, Russo DS. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2020; 33: 192-201. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6468
  3. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, Oriso K, Kondo H. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: a literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 109-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010
  4. Nkenke E, Zachow S, Benz M, Maier T, Veit K, Kramer M, Benz S, Hausler G, Neukam FW, Lell M. Fusion of computed tomography data and optical 3D images of the dentition for streak artefact correction in the simulation of orthognathic surgery. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2004; 33: 226-32. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/27071199
  5. Jacobs R, Salmon B, Codari M, Hassan B, Bornstein MM. Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: recommendations for clinical use. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18: 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0523-5
  6. Al-Rimawi A, Shaheen E, Albdour EA, Shujaat S, Politis C, Jacobs R. Trueness of cone beam computed tomography versus intra-oral scanner derived three-dimensional digital models: an ex vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 498-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.453_13509
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Van Eijnatten M, Berger FH, De Graaf P, Koivisto J, Forouzanfar T, Wolff J. Influence of CT parameters on STL model accuracy. Rapid Prototyp J. 2017; 23: 678-85. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2015-0092
  10. Scarfe WC, Angelopoulos C. Maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography: principles, techniques and clinical applications. 1st ed. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 15-22.
  11. Matenine D, Schmittbuhl M, Bedwani S, Despres P, de Guise JA. Iterative reconstruction for image enhancement and dose reduction in diagnostic cone beam CT imaging. J Xray Sci Technol. 2019; 27: 805-19.
  12. Flugge T, Derksen W, Te Poel J, Hassan B, Nelson K, Wismeijer D. Registration of cone beam computed tomography data and intraoral surface scans - a prerequisite for guided implant surgery with CAD/CAM drilling guides. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1113-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12925
  13. Tomita Y, Uechi J, Konno M, Sasamoto S, Iijima M, Mizoguchi I. Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning. Dent Mater J. 2018; 37: 628-33. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-208
  14. Wong KY, Esguerra RJ, Chia VAP, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 120-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12714
  15. Lai D, Shiao SYPK. Comparing two clinical measurements: a linear mixed model approach. J Appl Stat. 2005; 32: 855-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760500080157
  16. Giavarina D. Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015; 25: 141-51. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.015
  17. Bohner L, Gamba DD, Hanisch M, Marcio BS, Tortamano Neto P, Lagana DC, Sesma N. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 246-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.015
  18. Henninger E, Vasilakos G, Halazonetis D, Gkantidis N. The effect of regular dental cast artifacts on the 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental models. Sci Rep. 2019; 9: 10501. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46887-1
  19. 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.