• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.56 no.3
• /
• pp.258-268
• /
• 2018

Purpose: This study systematically examines literatures on the suitability of prostheses and accuracy of obtained impressions to see if digital impressions using intraoral scanners can replace traditional impressions. Materials and methods: A MEDLINE/PubMed search and manual search was performed for studies written in English about accuracy of digital impression published in dental journals from August 1, 1997, to July 31, 2017. Depending on criteria, the data for the selected articles were independently organized into standardized spreadsheets by 2 reviewers. Results: Among the total 35 studies met the inclusion criteria, there were 26 studies comparing the suitability of prostheses, and 9 studies comparing the accuracy of impressions through scan data without prostheses. Most studies used prostheses to compare the accuracy of impression techniques. Conclusion: This review suggests that making single crown or mesio-distally short prostheses with digital impressions is clinically reliable in natural teeth. However, there is still a limit to making mesio-distally long prostheses with digital impressions from the lack of related studies. Digital impression cannot fully replace traditional impressions in implant prostheses yet.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.5
• /
• pp.354-362
• /
• 2016

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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.29-40
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of impression taking method using the encoded healing abutment, scan body and pick-up impression coping with different implant angulations. Materials and Methods: Master model was fabricated by 3D printer and three implants were placed into the model with 0°, 10° and 20° mesial angulation. The abutments were secured to each implants and master model was scanned to make a reference model. Group P model was fabricated using pick-up impression copings and model was scanned after securing the abutments. Encoded healing abutment (Group E) and scan body (Group S) were secured on the master model and digital impression was taken using intraoral scanner 15 times each. Each STL files of test groups were superimposed with reference model using best fit alignment and root mean square (RMS) value was analyzed. Results: The RMS values were lowest in Group P, followed by Group S and Group E. Group P showed significant difference with Group S and E (P < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Group S and E. Correlation between implant angulation and RMS value was significant in Group E (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The pick-up impression coping method showed higher accuracy and there was no significant difference in accuracy between the healing abutment and the scan body. The clinical use of the encoded healing abutment is possible, but it should be used with caution in the case of angulated implant.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.51 no.2
• /
• pp.95-104
• /
• 2021

Objective: To evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch scans acquired using five intraoral scanners and investigate the factors associated with the dimensional accuracy of the intraoral scan data. Methods: Nine adult participants (mean age, 34.3 ± 8.3 years) were recruited. Four zirconium spheres (Ø 6 mm) were bonded to the canines and the molars. Following acquisition of reference scans using an industrial-grade scanner, five intraoral scanners, namely i500, CS3600, Trios 3, iTero, and CEREC Omnicam, were used to scan the arches. Linear distances between the four reference spheres were automatically calculated, and linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare the trueness and precision of the intraoral scan data among the different scanners. Results: The absolute mean trueness and precision values for all intraoral scanners were 76.6 ± 79.3 and 56.6 ± 52.4 ㎛, respectively. The type of scanner and the measured linear distances had significant effects on the accuracy of the intraoral scan data. With regard to trueness, errors in the intermolar dimension and the distance from the canine to the contralateral molar were greater with Omnicam than with the other scanners. With regard to precision, the error in the linear distance from the canine to the molar in the same quadrant was greater with Omnicam and CS3600 than with the other scanners. Conclusions: The dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.205-215
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of three intraoral scanner (IOS) systems with three different dental arch widths. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three dental models with different intermolar widths (small, medium, and large) were attached to metal bars of different lengths (30, 40, and 50 mm). The bars were measured with a coordinate measuring machine and used as references. Three IOSs were compared: TRIOS 3 (TRI), True Definition (TD), and Dental Wings (DW). The relative length and angular deviation of both ends of the metal bars from the scan data set (n = 15) were calculated and analyzed. RESULTS. Comparing among scanners in terms of trueness, the relative length deviation of DW in the small (1.28%) and medium (1.08%) arches were significantly higher than TRI (0.46% and 0.48%) and TD (0.33% and 0.18%). The angular deviation of DW in the small (1.75°) and medium (1.83°) arches were also significantly greater than TRI (0.63° and 0.40°) and TD (0.55° and 0.89°). Comparing within scanner, the large arch of DW showed better accuracy than other arch sizes (P < .05). On the other hand, the larger arch of TD presented a greater tendency of angular deviation in terms of trueness. No significant differences were found in terms of trueness between the arch widths of TRI group. CONCLUSION. The different widths of the dental arches can affect the accuracy of some intraoral scanners in full arch scan.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.5
• /
• pp.299-306
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann- Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (α=.05). RESULTS. The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 ㎛), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 ㎛), Omnicam (41.5 ㎛ and 18 ㎛), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 ㎛), iTero (70 and 12 ㎛) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 ㎛). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right (P=.009). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Primescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.61 no.3
• /
• pp.245-256
• /
• 2023

When restoring with a dental digital system for implant-supported prosthesis, a double digital scanning technique is required: an intraoral scan of the three-dimensional implant location and intraoral scan after placement of temporary denture or provisional prosthesis. During the intraoral scan, the use of scan body as a stable landmark can improve the accuracy of digital impression and simplify laboratory process. In this case, a full-digital system was used to plan and fabricate a custom abutment, provisional prosthesis, and definitive prosthesis. After implant placement, the scan area of the intraoral scan body connected with implant and the intraoral scan body marked on the inside of temporary denture were superimposed. Out of the superimposed files, a custom abutment and provisional prosthesis were fabricated which match the vertical dimension of temporary denture, and definitive prosthesis was fabricated based on provisional prosthesis. We report this case because result has been functionally and esthetically satisfactory by using vertical dimension and central relation set during the fabrication of temporary denture to the definitive prosthesis.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.108-122
• /
• 2016

Prosthetic-driven implant placement is a concept considering the dental implant restoration first based on the final form of that prosthesis to be restored. The latest development of the imaging technology and digital dentistry was able to be obtained the high quality images of CBCT with low radiation exposure and it has also enabled the process to reconstruct the intraoral state in three dimensions due to the development of the intraoral, model and impression scanner. Computer-guided implant placement simulations and template production was able to be more widely used in this context. In this narrative review, the features and the types of implant surgical guides will be introduced. It will also be described the diagnosis and treatment plan using computerguided implant software to reduce the number of visit and to increase the accuracy of the implant surgery through the top-down approach based on the shape and location of the final prosthesis.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.14-24
• /
• 2022

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the validity of orthodontic measurements including tooth width, Bolton ratio, overjet and overbite on the digital dental models. Dental models of the subjects aged 12 to 18 were obtained in 3 different forms, which were conventional stone model, digital model created with Freedom HD model scanner, and digital model produced with CS3600 intraoral scanner. After measurements were made on the models, reliability and reproducibility of the measurements were evaluated by using intraclass correlation coefficient, while validity was assessed with paired t-test. As a result, significant reliability and reproducibility were verified, with intraclass correlation coefficient exceeding 0.750 in all groups. Measurements of the model scanned group showed an adequate validity in overall and anterior Bolton ratio, overjet, and overbite. Intraoral scanned models showed an adequate validity in anterior Bolton ratio, and overjet. Measurement on intraoral scanned digital models can be considered as an alternative for young children who have difficulty in taking impression. Furthermore, careful considerations on measurement error should be made in clinical situations.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.6
• /
• pp.331-340
• /
• 2019

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study is to assess the accuracy of three intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch and evaluate the feasibility of the assessment methodology for further in vivo analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A specific measurement pattern was fabricated and measured using a coordinate measuring machine for the assessment of control distances and angles. Afterwards, the pattern was placed and fixed in replica of an upper jaw for their subsequent scans (10 times) using 3 intraoral scanners, namely iTero Element1, Trios 3, and True Definition. 4 reference distances and 5 angles were measured and compared with the controls. Trueness and precision were assessed for each IOS: trueness, as the deviation of the measures from the control ones, while precision, as the dispersion of measurements in each reference parameter. These measurements were carried out using software for analyzing 3-dimensional data. Data analysis software was used for statistical and measurements analysis (α=.05). RESULTS. Significant differences (P<.05) were found depending on the intraoral scanner used. Best trueness values were achieved with iTero Element1 (mean from 10 ± 7 ㎛ to 91 ± 63 ㎛) while the worst values were obtained with Trios3 (mean from 42 ± 23 ㎛ to 174 ± 77 ㎛). Trueness analysis in angle measurements, as well as precision analysis, did not show conclusive results. CONCLUSION. iTero Element1 was more accurate than the current versions of Trios3 and True Definition. Importantly, the proposed methodology is considered reliable for analyzing accuracy in any dental arch length and valid for assessing both trueness and precision in an in vivo study.