Anatomy and Cell Biology

Korean Association of Anatomists (대한해부학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation on the accuracy of three intraoral scanners for human identification in forensic odontology

  • Eun-Jeong Bae (3D Printer Technology Analysis Research Team, Cybermed Inc.) ;
  • Eun-Jin Woo (Department of History, College of Liberal Art, Sejong University)
  • Received : 2021.07.02
  • Accepted : 2021.09.03
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the accuracy of intra oral scanner (IOS) to confirm the applicability of IOS for the recording and analysis of tooth morphology in forensics. The less damaged mandible specimen with many teeth remaining was scanned three times using three types of intraoral scanners (CS3600, i500, and Trios3). For quantitative comparisons of the scanned images produced by these intraoral scanners, root mean square (RMS) values were computed using a three-dimensional analysis program and a one-way ANOVA was conducted with Tukey HSD (honestly significant difference) as a post-hoc analysis (α=0.05). The repeatability of the full scan data was highest with the i500 (0.14±0.03 mm), and the post-hoc analysis confirmed significant differences between the CS3600 and the i500 outcomes (P-value=0.003). The repeatability of the partial scan data for the teeth in the mandible was highest with the i500 (0.08±0.02 mm), and the post-hoc analysis confirmed significant differences between the CS3600 and the i500 (P-value=0.016). The precision of the full scan data was highest with the i500 (0.16±0.01 mm) but the differences were not statistically significant (P-value=0.091). Meanwhile, the precision of the partial scan data for the teeth in the mandible was highest with the Trios3 (0.22±0.02 mm), but the differences were not statistically significant (P-value=0.762). Considering that the scanning of other areas of the oral cavity in addition to the teeth is important in forensic odontology, the i500 scanner appears to be the most appropriate intraoral scanner for human identification. However, as the scope of oral scanning is generally limited to teeth in the practice of dentistry, additional discussions of how to apply the IOS in forensic odontology are needed. Ultimately, the results here can contribute to the overall discussion of the forensic applicability dental data produced by intraoral scanners.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Medit for the scanning of the mandible with the C500 device. This work was supported by a grant from the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2018R1A5A7023490). This work was also supported by a grant from the Daedeok Korea Innovation Cluster funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021-DD-RD-0189).

References

  1. Clark DH. An analysis of the value of forensic odontology in ten mass disasters. Int Dent J 1994;44:241-50. 
  2. Eboh DEO. Odontometric sex discrimination in young Urhobo adults of South-South Nigeria. Anat Cell Biol 2019;52:269-77. 
  3. Santo E, Pinho T, Teixeira A, Perez-Mongiovi D. Use of intraoral three-dimensional images for the identification of dental morphological traits related to ancestry estimation. J Forensic Sci Med 2021;7:70-3. 
  4. Kim WH, Nam SE, Park YS, Lee SP. Maxillary first molar wear: a longitudinal study of children. Anat Cell Biol 2018;51:251-9. 
  5. Clement JG. Odontology. In: Siegel JA, Saukko PJ, Houck MM, editors. Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. 2nd ed. Waltham: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2013. p.106-14. 
  6. Dedouit F, Savall F, Mokrane FZ, Rousseau H, Crubezy E, Rouge D, Telmon N. Virtual anthropology and forensic identification using multidetector CT. Br J Radiol 2014;87:20130468. 
  7. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:149. 
  8. Kravitz ND, Groth C, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod 2014;48:337-47. 
  9. Suese K. Progress in digital dentistry: the practical use of intraoral scanners. Dent Mater J 2020;39:52-6. 
  10. Lee SH, Nam SE, Lee SP. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the new tooth wear measurement parameters. Anat Cell Biol 2015;48:284-91. 
  11. Chomdej T, Pankaow W, Choychumroon S. Intelligent dental identification system (IDIS) in forensic medicine. Forensic Sci Int 2006;158:27-38. 
  12. Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont 2020;29:518-23. 
  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. 
  14. Chai T, Draxler RR. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? - Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci Model Dev 2014;7:1247-50. 
  15. 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.e1. 
  16. 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. 
  17. Lee JH, Yun JH, Han JS, Yeo IL, Yoon HI. Repeatability of intraoral scanners for complete arch scan of partially edentulous dentitions: an in vitro study. J Clin Med 2019;8:1187. 
  18. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11. 
  19. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps A I. Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:811-20. 
  20. Chen Y, Zhai Z, Li H, Yamada S, Matsuoka T, Ono S, Nakano T. Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2021 Apr 7 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13358. 
  21. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-52. 
  22. Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:308-13. 
  23. Soomer H, Lincoln MJ, Ranta H, Penttila A, Leibur E. Dentists' qualifications affect the accuracy of radiographic identification. J Forensic Sci 2003;48:1121-6. 
  24. Pinchi V, Norelli GA, Caputi F, Fassina G, Pradella F, Vincenti C. Dental identification by comparison of antemortem and postmortem dental radiographs: influence of operator qualifications and cognitive bias. Forensic Sci Int 2012;222:252-5.