Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.2.102

Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanner by three-dimensional analysis in single and 3-unit bridge abutment model: In vitro study  

Huang, Mei-Yang (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Son, Keunbada (Department of Dental Science, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University)
Lee, Wan-Sun (Advanced Dental Device Development Institute (A3DI), Kyungpook National University)
Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.57, no.2, 2019 , pp. 102-109 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three types of intraoral scanners and the accuracy of the single abutment and bridge abutment model. Materials and methods: In this study, a single abutment, and a bridge abutment with missing first molar was fabricated and set as the reference model. The reference model was scanned with an industrial three-dimensional scanner and set as reference scan data. The reference model was scanned five times using the three intraoral scanners (CS3600, CS3500, and EZIS PO). This was set as the evaluation scan data. In the three-dimensional analysis (Geomagic control X), the divided abutment region was selected and analyzed to verify the scan accuracy of the abutment. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (${\alpha}=.05$). The accuracy of intraoral scanners was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and post-test was performed using the Pairwise test. The accuracy difference between the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: The accuracy according to the intraoral scanner was significantly different (P < .05). The trueness of the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model showed a statistically significant difference and showed better trueness in the single abutment (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the precision (P = .616). Conclusion: As a result of comparing the accuracy of single and bridge abutments, the error of abutment scan increased with increasing scan area, and the accuracy of bridge abutment model was clinically acceptable in three types of intraoral scanners.
Keywords
Intraoral scanner; Three-dimensional data; Accuracy; Three-dimensional analysis;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 5  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:555-60.   DOI
2 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.
3 Kang BG, Kim HJ, Chung CH. Accuracy of the CT guided implant template by using an intraoral scanner according to the edentulous distance. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2017;55:1-8.   DOI
4 Sedda M, Casarotto A, Raustia A, Borracchini A. Effect of storage time on the accuracy of casts made from different irreversible hydrocolloids. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:59-66.   DOI
5 Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 2010;20:243-9.
6 Mah J, Hatcher D. Current status and future needs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:10-6.   DOI
7 van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12.   DOI
8 White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS. Analysis of intraarch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on conebeam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:456.e1-9.   DOI
9 Kwon HJ, Kim KK, Yi WJ. Comparison of digital models generated from three-dimensional optical scanner and cone beam computed tomography. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2016;32:60-9.   DOI
10 Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touchprobe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:194-200.   DOI
11 Park JH, Seol JH, Lee JJ, Lee SP, Lim YJ. Comparative study on quality of scanned images from varying materials and surface conditions of standardized model for dental scanner evaluation. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2018;34:104-15.   DOI
12 Bohner LOL, De Luca Canto G, Marcio BS, Lagana DC, Sesma N, Tortamano Neto P. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:617-23.   DOI
13 Felton DA, Kanoy BE, Bayne SC, Wirthman GP. Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:357-64.   DOI
14 ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions. International Standards Organization (ISO); Geneva; Switzerland, 1994. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en
15 Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:253-9.   DOI
16 Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
17 Vecsei B, Joos-Kovacs G, Borbely J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:177-84.   DOI
18 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.   DOI
19 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.
20 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.   DOI
21 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.   DOI
22 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.   DOI
23 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.   DOI
24 Kim KR, Seo K, Kim S. Comparison of the accuracy of digital impressions and traditional impressions: Systematic review. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2018;56:258-68.   DOI
25 Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673-82.   DOI
26 Son K, Lee WS, Lee KB. Prediction of the learning curves of 2 dental CAD software programs. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:95-100.   DOI
27 Aragon ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:429-34.   DOI
28 Choi JH, Lim YJ, Lee WJ, Han JS, Lee SP. Review of recent developments for intra-oral scanners. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2015;31:112-25.   DOI
29 Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:221-30.   DOI
30 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.   DOI
31 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;17:1-13.   DOI
32 Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:450-9.   DOI
33 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.   DOI
34 Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015;59:236-42.   DOI
35 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.   DOI