Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.4.191

Use of measuring gauges for in vivo accuracy analysis of intraoral scanners: a pilot study  

Iturrate, Mikel (Department of Business Management, Faculty of Engineering Gipuzkoa, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU)
Amezua, Xabier (Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Faculty of Engineering Gipuzkoa, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU)
Garikano, Xabier (Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Faculty of Engineering Gipuzkoa, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU)
Solaberrieta, Eneko (Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Faculty of Engineering Gipuzkoa, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.13, no.4, 2021 , pp. 191-204 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to present a methodology to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) used in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A specific feature-based gauge was designed, manufactured, and measured in a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), obtaining reference distances and angles. Then, 10 scans were taken by an IOS with the gauge in the patient's mouth and from the obtained stereolithography (STL) files, a total of 40 distances and 150 angles were measured and compared with the gauge's reference values. In order to provide a comparison, there were defined distance and angle groups in accordance with the increasing scanning area: from a short span area to a complete-arch scanning extension. Data was analyzed using software for statistical analysis. RESULTS. Deviations in measured distances showed that accuracy worsened as the scanning area increased: trueness varied from 0.018 ± 0.021 mm in a distance equivalent to the space spanning a four-unit bridge to 0.106 ± 0.08 mm in a space equivalent to a complete arch. Precision ranged from 0.015 ± 0.03 mm to 0.077 ± 0.073 mm in the same two areas. When analyzing angles, deviations did not show such a worsening pattern. In addition, deviations in angle measurement values were low and there were no calculated significant differences among angle groups. CONCLUSION. Currently, there is no standardized procedure to assess the accuracy of IOS in vivo, and the results show that the proposed methodology can contribute to this purpose. The deviations measured in the study show a worsening accuracy when increasing the length of the scanning area.
Keywords
Intraoral scanner; 3D optical scanner; Measuring gauge; In vivo accuracy evaluation; Digital impression;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent 2016;55:68-74.   DOI
2 Pan Y, Tam JM, Tsoi JK, Lam WY, Huang R, Chen Z, Pow EH. Evaluation of laboratory scanner accuracy by a novel calibration block for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. J Dent 2020;102:103476.   DOI
3 ISO 12836. Dentistry - Digitizing devices for CAD/CAM systems for indirect dental restorations - test methods for assessing accuracy. International Standards Organization (ISO); Geneva; Switzerland, 2015. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/68414.html Accessed July 15, 2021.
4 Iturrate M, Lizundia E, Amezua X, Solaberrieta E. A new method to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch: a pilot study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:331-40.   DOI
5 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
6 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
7 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.   DOI
8 Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:1445-55.   DOI
9 Ali AO. Accuracy of digital impressions achieved from five different digital impression systems. Dentistry 2015;5:300.
10 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/standard/11833.html Accessed August 4, 2021.
11 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
12 Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining fullarch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17.
13 Pradies G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martinez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent 2015;43:201-8.   DOI
14 Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:263.   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 Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1487-94.   DOI
17 Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1495-504.   DOI
18 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
19 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
20 Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78:466-471.   DOI
21 Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont 2016;25:282-7.   DOI
22 Hack GD, Patzelt SBM. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation. Am Dent Assoc 2015;10:1-5.
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 Joda T, Bragger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1430-5.   DOI
25 Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:111-5.   DOI
26 Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:542-51.   DOI
27 Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:574-9.   DOI
28 Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:36-42.   DOI
29 Luo H, Xu J, Hoa Binh N, Liu S, Zhang C, Chen K. A simple calibration procedure for structured light system. Opt Lasers Eng 2014;57:6-12.   DOI
30 Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:372-8.   DOI
31 Zhang F, Suh KJ, Lee KM. Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0157713.   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 Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:1133-40.   DOI
34 Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9.   DOI
35 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. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13358.   DOI
36 Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:1250-8.   DOI
37 Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:291-300.   DOI
38 Martinez-Pellitero S, Cuesta E, Giganto S, Barreiro J. New procedure for qualification of structured light 3D scanners using an optical feature-based gauge. Opt Lasers Eng 2018;110:193-206.   DOI
39 Dury MR, Woodward SD, Brown SB, McCarthy MB. Surface finish and 3D optical scanner measurement performance for precision engineering. Proc - ASPE 2016 Annu Meet 2016;167-72.