• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.63-69
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of five intraoral scanners (IOS) using a novel reference model for standardized performance evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Five IOSs (Medit i500, Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4) were used to digitize the reference model, which represented a simplified full-arch situation with four abutment teeth. Each IOS was used five times by an experienced operator, resulting in 25 STL (Standard Tessellation Language) files. STL data were imported into 3D software (Final Surface^®) and examined for inter- and intra-group analyses. Deviations in the parameter matching error were calculated. ANOVA F-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied for inter-group comparisons (α = .05); and the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for intra-group comparisons (in % ± SD). RESULTS. Primescan (matching error value: 0.015), Trios 3 (0.016), and Trios 4 (0.018) revealed comparable results with significantly higher accuracy compared to Medit i500 (0.035) and Omnicam (0.028) (P < .001). For intra-group comparison, Trios 4 demonstrated the most homogenous results (CV 15.8%). CONCLUSION. The novel reference model investigated in this study can be used to assess the performance of dental scanning technologies in the daily routine setting and in research settings.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.57 no.9
• /
• pp.524-528
• /
• 2019

With the advances of CAD-CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) technology, the field of modern clinical dentistry has been dramatically changed. The first step in the digital workflow for tooth-supported dental prosthesis is a data acquisition with intraoral digital or conventional impression techniques. For the accuracy of intraoral digital impression data, the basic principles of conventional impression should be applied. It is necessary to obtain a good visibility with properly-dried field and well-exposed margin of the prepared abutment. Currently, the equi- or supra-gingival finish line can be recommended as an indication for intraoral digital impression. The scan data are generally exported to '.stl' file format, which has only morphological information of black and whitem while '.obj' file format can store data on color and texture.

• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.33-44
• /
• 2019

Objectives: To investigate how dental hygienists who have never used a digital oral scanner perceive the impression acquisition and evidence needed for prosthesis planning by using a digital oral scanner. Methods: From July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, subjects from Daegu, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, were selected. The purpose of the study was described to dental hygienists who had never used a digital intraoral scanner. Questionnaires were distributed to the students selected. Of the 137 questionnaires distributed, 93 were used in the analysis after excluding 44 completed questionnaires that had errors or missing answers. Results: Of the respondents, 33.7% (36/93) were aged ${\geq}30$ years, 68.8% graduated from a 3-year vocational college course, 33.5% were aged ${\geq}33$ years, and 61.3%. At present, our center has the largest number of clinics (92.5%). The difficulty of impression taking using the digital oral scanner significantly differed (p<0.05) according to age and current occupation (p<0.05). Impression taking using a digital oral scanner significantly affected the present workflow of dental hygienists and their interest in sharing information about future use of digital oral scanner (p<0.01). Conclusions: If more routes are available to access digital intraoral scanners and more systems are developed for clinical use, the digital intraoral scanner could become digitized in the dental system; thereby, the existing impressions could be replaced with digitized impressions. With digital intraoral scanners, the expansion of the business of dental hygiene can be expected.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.282-289
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) on digital impressions of different types of endocrown cavity preparations. Materials and methods: Two human mandibular molar teeth were prepared with different endocrown abutment designs: one with a buccal wall (Class 2) and the other without a buccal wall (Class 3). Both cavity designs were scanned using a reference desktop scanner (E3) and three different intraoral scanners: Trios3 (TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (CER group), and i500 (I5 group). The obtained Standard Tessellation Language (.stl) datasets were exported to metrology software. The precision was evaluated based on deviations among repeated scan models recorded by each IOS. The trueness was evaluated based on deviations between the reference data and repeated scans. For detecting interaction, data were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and for analyzing the comparison of the test groups data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test at the significance level of .05. Results: The deviation values for both cavity designs in the I5 group were significantly lower than those in the other IOS groups in terms of trueness. For both cavity designs, the TRI group exhibited better precision than the other IOS groups. Conclusion: Different technologies of IOS device's and different endocrown prepration designs affected the accuracy of the digital scans.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.3-12
• /
• 2016

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision of three-dimensional (3D) images acquired using iTero$^{(R)}$(Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) and Trios$^{(R)}$(3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark) digital intraoral scanners, and to evaluate the effects of the severity of tooth irregularities and scanning sequence on precision. Methods: Dental arch models were fabricated with differing degrees of tooth irregularity and divided into 2 groups based on scanning sequence. To assess their precision, images were superimposed and an optimized superimposition algorithm was employed to measure any 3D deviation. The t-test, paired t-test, and one-way ANOVA were performed (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis. Results: The iTero$^{(R)}$ and Trios$^{(R)}$ systems showed no statistically significant difference in precision among models with differing degrees of tooth irregularity. However, there were statistically significant differences in the precision of the 2 scanners when the starting points of scanning were different. The iTero$^{(R)}$ scanner (mean deviation, $29.84{\pm}12.08{\mu}m$) proved to be less precise than the Trios$^{(R)}$ scanner ($22.17{\pm}4.47{\mu}m$). Conclusions: The precision of 3D images differed according to the degree of tooth irregularity, scanning sequence, and scanner type. However, from a clinical standpoint, both scanners were highly accurate regardless of the degree of tooth irregularity.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.52 no.6
• /
• pp.354-362
• /
• 2014

With the development of digital dentistry, various intra-oral scanners which acquire intraoral image without conventional impression taking and stone pouring steps have been introduced. Fixed dental prostheses such as inlay, onlay, crown, and bridge fabricated by CAD/CAM technique combined with digital impressions is getting popular due to the recent rapid progress of digital impression taking system. In comparison with traditional prosthetic procedure, the advantages of intraoral image acquiring and CAD/CAM technique are as follows; the omission of conventional impression materials, reduced workflow step, and increased efficiency by online communication with clinic and laboratory. This review article covers some opinions about the suitable scanning procedures for the various prosthodontic treatments and the utilization of digital intraoral scanner and CAD/CAM system.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.2
• /
• pp.102-109
• /
• 2019

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.

• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.22 no.6
• /
• pp.467-475
• /
• 2022

Objectives: This study aimed to understand the definitions, types, and principles of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and scanners due to the introduction of digital workflows. Methods: This study was based on information from the government's law and articles published in academic journals. Results: CAD/CAM is a technology that measures the shape three-dimensionally, saves it as data, designs it into the desired shape, and processes the product. Scanners, which are classified as intraoral and extraoral scanners, measure teeth and the intraoral environment three-dimensionally and convert them into three-dimensional (3D). A 3D printer is a machine that creates a 3D object by layering materials based on a 3D drawing. It can be classified into four types according to the method: extrusion, powder bonding, lamination, and photopolymerization methods. The most used 3D printer methods in dentistry are stereolithograhpy and digital light processing, and they are widely used in prosthetic, surgical, and orthodontic fields. Conclusions: As the dental system is digitized, it is expected that the government will classify the dental hygienist scope of work and the universities will reflect the curriculum; it is necessary to develop excellent dental hygienists, diversify the educational pathways, and establish policies to meet the needs of the increasing number of patients.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.191-204
• /
• 2021

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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.104-115
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the image acquisition ability of intraoral scanners by analyzing the comprehensiveness of scanned images from standardized model, and to identify problems of the model. Materials and Methods: Cast models and 3D-printed models were prepared according to international standards set by ISO12836 and ANSI/ADA no. 132, which were then scanned by model scanner and two different intraoral scanners (TRIOS3 and CS3500). The image acquisition performance of the scanners was classified into three grades, and the study was repeated with varying surface conditions of the models. Results: Model scanner produced the most accurate images in all models. Meanwhile, CS3500 showed good image reproducibility for angled structures and TRIOS3 showed good image reproducibility for rounded structures. As for model ingredients, improved plaster model best reproduced scan images regardless of the type of scanner used. When limited to 3D-printed model, powdered surface condition resulted in higher image quality. Conclusion: When scanning structures beyond FOV (field of view) in standardized models (following ISO12836 and ANSI/ADA 132), lack of reference points to help distinguish different faces confuses the scanning and matching process, resulting in inaccurate display of images. These results imply the need to develop a new standard model not confined to simple pattern repetition and symmetric structure.