Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form  

Park, Ji-Man (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.8, no.5, 2016 , pp. 354-362 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups. CONCLUSION. Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.
Keywords
Intraoral scanner; Digital impression; Reproducibility of intraoral scanner; Trueness; Precision;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Rupf S, Berger H, Buchter A, Harth V, Ong MF, Hannig M. Exposure of patient and dental staff to fine and ultrafine particles from scanning spray. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:823-30.   DOI
2 Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Laser Eng 2014;54:203-21.   DOI
3 Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64.   DOI
4 Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
5 Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21.
6 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.
7 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.   DOI
8 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
9 Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44-56.   DOI
10 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
11 Schaefer O, Decker M, Wittstock F, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro. J Dent 2014;42:677-83.   DOI
12 Paranhos LR, Lima CS, da Silva RH, Daruge Júnior E, Torres FC. Correlation between maxillary central incisor crown morphology and mandibular dental arch form in normal occlusion subjects. Braz Dent J 2012;23:149-53.   DOI
13 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-72.
14 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.   DOI
15 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.   DOI
16 Kim SR, Lee WS, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim JH. Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud. Dent Mater J 2015;34:835-40.   DOI
17 Atzeni E, Iuliano L, Minetola P, Salmi A. Proposal of an innovative benchmark for accuracy evaluation of dental crown manufacturing. Comput Biol Med 2012;42:548-55.   DOI
18 Paranhos LR, Zaroni M, Carli JP, Okamoto R, Zogheib LV, Torres FC. Association between the facial type and morphology of the upper central incisor in normal occlusion subjects. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15:29-33.   DOI
19 Martin CB, Chalmers EV, McIntyre GT, Cochrane H, Mossey PA. Orthodontic scanners: what's available? J Orthod 2015;42:136-43.   DOI
20 Sannino G, Gloria F, Schiavetti R, Ottria L, Barlattani A. Dental Wings CAD/CAM system precision: an internal and marginal fit sperimental analisys. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2009;2:11-20.
21 Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28.
22 Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, Yeo IS, Lim YJ, Kwon HB. Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:161-3.   DOI
23 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
24 An S, Kim S, Choi H, Lee JH, Moon HS. Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1171-5.   DOI
25 Sturdevant JR, Bayne SC, Heymann HO. Margin gap size of ceramic inlays using second-generation CAD/CAM equipment. J Esthet Dent 1999;11:206-14.   DOI
26 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.   DOI
27 Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow-the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:2119-25.   DOI