• 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.

• Imaging Science in Dentistry
• /
• v.51 no.4
• /
• pp.399-406
• /
• 2021

Purpose: This in vitro study measured and compared 3 intraoral scanners' accuracy (trueness and precision) with different span lengths. Materials and Methods: Three master casts were prepared to simulate 3 different span lengths (fixed partial dentures with 3, 4, and 5 units). Each master cast was scanned once with an E3 lab scanner and 10 times with each of the 3 intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Planmeca Emerald, and Primescan AC). Data were stored as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The differences between measurements were compared 3-dimensionally using metrology software. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis by the Tukey honest significant difference test for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between the 3 intraoral scanners in trueness and precision (P<0.05). Primescan AC showed the lowest trueness and precision values(36.8 ㎛ and 42.0 ㎛;(39.4 ㎛ and 51.2 ㎛; and 54.9 ㎛ and 52.7 ㎛) followed by Trios 3 (38.9 ㎛ and 53.5 ㎛; 49.9 ㎛ and 59.1 ㎛; and 58.1 ㎛ and 64.5 ㎛) and Planmeca Emerald (60.4 ㎛ and 63.6 ㎛; 61.3 ㎛ and 69.0 ㎛; and 70.8 ㎛ and 74.3 ㎛) for the 3-unit, 4-unit, and 5-unit fixed partial dentures, respectively. Conclusion: Primescan AC had the best trueness and precision, followed by Trios 3 and Planmeca Emerald. Increasing span length reduced the trueness and precession of the 3 scanners; however, their values were within the accepted successful ranges.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.5
• /
• pp.335-339
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. The purpose of the present study was to compare scanning trueness and precision between an abutment impression and a stone model according to dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) evaluation standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To evaluate trueness, the abutment impression and stone model were scanned to obtain the first 3-dimensional (3-D) stereolithography (STL) file. Next, the abutment impression or stone model was removed from the scanner and re-fixed on the table; scanning was then repeated so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. To evaluate precision, the abutment impression or stone model was scanned to obtain the first 3-D STL file. Without moving it, scanning was performed 10 more times, so that 11 files were obtained for each scan type. By superimposing the first scanned STL file onto the other STL files one by one, 10 color-difference maps and reports were obtained; i.e., 10 experimental scans per type. The independent t-test was used to compare root mean square (RMS) data between the groups (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The $RMS{\pm}SD$ values of scanning trueness of the abutment impression and stone model were $22.4{\pm}4.4$ and $17.4{\pm}3.5{\mu}m$, respectively (P<.012). The $RMS{\pm}SD$ values of scanning precision of the abutment impression and stone model were $16.4{\pm}2.9$ and $14.6{\pm}1.6{\mu}m$, respectively (P=.108). CONCLUSION. There was a significant difference in scanning trueness between the abutment impression and stone model, as evaluated according to dental CAD/CAM standards. However, all scans showed high trueness and precision.

• 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.6 no.6
• /
• pp.468-473
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digitizing dental impressions of abutment teeth using a white light scanner and to compare the findings among teeth types. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To assess precision, impressions of the canine, premolar, and molar prepared to receive all-ceramic crowns were repeatedly scanned to obtain five sets of 3-D data (STL files). Point clouds were compared and error sizes were measured (n=10 per type). Next, to evaluate trueness, impressions of teeth were rotated by $10^{\circ}-20^{\circ}$ and scanned. The obtained data were compared with the first set of data for precision assessment, and the error sizes were measured (n=5 per type). The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to evaluate precision and trueness among three teeth types, and post-hoc comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. Precision discrepancies for the canine, premolar, and molar were $3.7{\mu}m$, $3.2{\mu}m$, and $7.3{\mu}m$, respectively, indicating the poorest precision for the molar (P<.001). Trueness discrepancies for teeth types were $6.2{\mu}m$, $11.2{\mu}m$, and $21.8{\mu}m$, respectively, indicating the poorest trueness for the molar (P=.007). CONCLUSION. In respect to accuracy the molar showed the largest discrepancies compared with the canine and premolar. Digitizing of dental impressions of abutment teeth using a white light scanner was assessed to be a highly accurate method and provided discrepancy values in a clinically acceptable range. Further study is needed to improve digitizing performance of white light scanning in axial wall.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.89-99
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. This study aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of interim crowns fabricated using DLP (digital light processing) according to post-curing time. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A virtual stone study die of the upper right first molar was created using a dental laboratory scanner. After designing interim crowns on the virtual study die and saving them as Standard Triangulated Language files, 30 interim crowns were fabricated using a DLP-type 3D printer. Additively manufactured interim crowns were post-cured using three different time conditions-10-minute post-curing interim crown (10-MPCI), 20-minute post-curing interim crown (20-MPCI), and 30-minute post-curing interim crown (30-MPCI) (n = 10 per group). The scan data of the external and intaglio surfaces were overlapped with reference crown data, and trueness was measured using the best-fit alignment method. In the external and intaglio surface groups (n = 45 per group), precision was measured using a combination formula exclusive to scan data (10C2). Significant differences in accuracy (trueness and precision) data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test, and post hoc analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (α=.05). RESULTS. In the 10-MPCI, 20-MPCI, and 30-MPCI groups, there was a statistically significant difference in the accuracy of the external and intaglio surfaces (P<.05). On the external and intaglio surfaces, the root mean square (RMS) values of trueness and precision were the lowest in the 10-MPCI group. CONCLUSION. Interim crowns with 10-minute post-curing showed high accuracy.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.263-269
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the internal fitness of prostheses fabricated with non-contact extra-oral scanner and those fabricated with intra-oral video scanner, with a comparative accuracy analyses of their precision and trueness. Methods: A polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) model was fabricated by replicating a master model. The prostheses in the first group were fabricated based on the PMMA model with an intra-oral video scanner (IVS group). Following the fabrication of work models with Type IV Stone that were based on the PMMA model, the prostheses in the second group were fabricated with a non-contact extra-oral scanner (ENB group). The precision and trueness of the prostheses were calculated from comparisons of the three-dimensional images of the internal surfaces of the prostheses and those of the master model. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine the statistical significance, with the level of type 1 error set at 0.05. Results: Trueness (P < 0.009) and precision (P < 0.001) did not differ significantly between the ENB and IVS groups. The IVS group exhibited lower trueness values and larger precision values than the ENB group. Conclusion: Although no significant differences were found in the internal fitness of the prostheses that were fabricated by the two different scanners, the intraoral video scanner-fabricated prostheses had better trueness, whereas the non-contact extra-oral scanner-fabricated prostheses had better precision.

• 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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.24-35
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. This study was to evaluate the effect of rinsing time on the accuracy of interim crowns fabricated by digital light processing. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The maxillary right first molar master die was duplicated using a silicone material, while a study die was produced using epoxy resin. Scans of the epoxy resin die were used in combination with CAD software to design a maxillary right first molar interim crown. Based on this design, 24 interim crowns were fabricated with digital light processing. This study examined the trueness and precision of products that were processed with one of the three different postprocessing rinsing times (1 min, 5 min, and 10 min). Trueness was measured by superimposing reference data with scanned data from external, intaglio, and marginal surfaces. Precision was measured by superimposing the scan data within the group. The trueness and precision data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis, nonparametric, and post-hoc tests, and were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (α=.05). RESULTS. The trueness of the external and intaglio surfaces of crowns varied significantly among the different rinsing times (P=.004, P=.003), but there was no statistically significant difference in terms of trueness measurements of the marginal surfaces (P=.605). In terms of precision, statistically significant differences were found among the external, intaglio, and marginal surfaces (P=.001). CONCLUSION. Interim crowns rinsed for 10 minutes showed high accuracy.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.53-61
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the discrepancy of scan process in dental intra oral scanner by comparing model scanner and anticipate possibility to introduce intra oral scan technique. Methods: 3D superimposition test was conducted to compare the scan discrepancy. The scanners used in this study are the e-oral scanner, the D750 model scanner, and the high precision CMM(3D Coordinate Measuring Machine). The standard of accuracy verification is ISO 5725-1; trueness and precision. Master model was manufactured by dental stone and scanned 5 times by intra oral, model scanner. Reference data was scanned 5 times by high accuracy CMM to evaluate the trueness. Results: Trueness of D750 scanner were $7.4{\mu}m$ $5.1{\mu}m$ $6.8{\mu}m$ at an abutment, an occluasal, a specific area. and trueness of e-scanner were $20.2{\mu}m$ $27.4{\mu}m$ $37.8{\mu}m$ at an abutment, an occluasal, a specific area. Precision of D750 scanner was $7.04{\mu}m$, e-scanner was $15.95{\mu}m$. Conclusion: When conducting in vitro test, The mean difference of trueness between e-scanner and D750 were $12.8{\mu}m$ at an abutment area, $22.3{\mu}m$ at an occlusal area, $31.0{\mu}m$ at a specific area and $8.91{\mu}m$ in precision. The scan discrepancies are within the range of clinical acceptance.