• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.211-218
• /
• 2011

Purpose: The purpose of the study was a quantitative evaluation of common errors in digital impression procedure using CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC system. Methods: Two-hundreds digital impression data comprising 174 inlays, 26 onlays by CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC in-office CAD/CAM system were obtained from a dental clinic. One evaluator assessed errors of the digital impression data and divided into five categories of errors: inappropriate scanner positioning (ISP), improper handling with a scanner (IHS), irregular powder arrangement (IPA), improper cavity preparation (ICP), and insufficient scanned data (ISD). Results: The most common errors were IPA(21%), and ISP and ISD were followed by 17% respectively. IHS was found in 14.5% of all digital impression data. ICP comprising only 6.5% was the rarest. Conclusion: Most errors were due to inaccurate manipulation with an intraoral scanner or improper cavity preparation for scanning. A deliberate manipulation to prevent common errors mentioned may deliver an optimal result in the digital impression procedure.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.1-8
• /
• 2022

Purpose: Intraoral scanners, desktop scanners, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) are being used in a complementary way for diagnosis and treatment planning. Limited patient-based results are available about dimensional reproducibility among different three-dimensional imaging systems. This study aimed to evaluate dimensional reproducibility among patient-derived digital models created from an intraoral scanner, desktop scanner, and two CBCT systems. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine arches from sixteen patients who were candidates for implant treatments were enrolled. Different types of CBCT systems (KCT and VCT) were used before and after the surgery. Polyvinylsiloxane impressions were taken on the enrolled arches after the healing period. Gypsum casts were fabricated and scanned with an intraoral scanner (CIOS) and desktop scanner (MDS). Four test groups of digital models, each from CIOS, MDS, KCT, and VCT, respectively, were compared to the reference gypsum cast group. For comparison of linear measurements, intercanine and intermolar widths and left and right canine to molar lengths were measured on individual gypsum cast and digital models. All measurements were triplicated, and the averages were used for statistics. Bland-Altman plots were drawn to assess the degree of agreement between each test group with the reference gypsum cast group. A linear mixed model was used to analyze the fixed effect of the test groups compared to the reference group (α=0.05). Result: The Bland-Altman plots showed that the bias of each test group was -0.07 mm for CIOS, -0.07 mm for MDS, -0.21 mm for VCT, and -0.25 mm for KCT. The linear mixed model did not show significant differences between the test and reference groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The linear distances measured on the digital models created from CIOS, MDS, and two CBCT systems showed slightly larger than the references but clinically acceptable reproducibility for diagnosis and treatment planning.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.388-398
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 14 different intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four implants were placed in regions 13, 16, 23, and 26 of an edentulous maxillary model that was poured with scannable Type 4 gypsum to imitate the All-on-4 concept. The cast was scanned 10 times for each of 14 intraoral scanners (Primescan, iTero 2, iTero 5D, Virtuo Vivo, Trios 3, Trios 4, CS3600, CS3700, Emerald, Emerald S, Medit i500, BenQ BIS-I, Heron IOS, and Aadva IOS 100P) after the polyether ether ketone scanbody was placed. For the control group, the gypsum model was scanned 10 times with an industrial scanner. The first of the 10 virtual models obtained from the industrial model was chosen as the reference model. For trueness, the data of the 14 dental scanners were superimposed with the reference model; for precision, the data of all 14 scanners were superimposed within the groups. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilks, and Dunn's tests. RESULTS. Primescan showed the highest trueness and precision values (P < .005), followed by the iTero 5D scanner (P < .005). CONCLUSION. Some of these digital scanners can be used to make impressions within the All-on-4 concept. However, the possibility of data loss due to artifacts, reflections, and the inability to combine the data should be considered.

• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.9 no.5
• /
• pp.69-75
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to investigate the systematic and convergent education needs according to the use of digital intraoral scanners in dental hygienists. Data of 127 respondents who participated in an online survey for dental hygienists working at dental hospitals and clinics were analyzed by the frequency analysis, t-test, one way ANOVA, and correlation using SPSS 24.0 program. The utilization period of digital intraoral scanners in the hospital was 'less than 1 year' in 78.7%. As for relevant education experience, 58.3% answered 'no', showing a higher proportion of no education experience. As for clinical application of digital intraoral scanners, 77.4% responded that they use the scanner for clinical purposes. With regard to digital intraoral scanner education, 61.4% responded that education is necessary. This result reflects the fact that digital intraoral scanners have been rapidly introduced to dental hospitals and clinics, but systematic education has not been given. Therefore, we hope that this paper will be used as basic data to recognize the need for education on digital intraoral scanners.

• 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.15 no.4
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 ㎛, the values of 104 ㎛ and 171 ㎛ were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.

• 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 the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.176-187
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to evaluate validity, reliability and reproducibility of tooth width (TW), arch length (AL) and arch length discrepancy (ALD) measured on a digital model taken via 3-dimensional model scanner and intraoral scanner compared to a plaster model. A total of 30 patients aged 12 to 18 were eligible for the study. 3 types of models were acquired from each patient: a conventional plaster model (P), a model scanned digital model (MSD) taken via Freedom UHD^® and an intraoral scanned digital model (ISD) taken via CS3600^® in-vivo. The reliability of TW and AL in each group was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficient, while the reproducibility was evaluated with intraclass correlation coefficient. The validity of space analysis was assessed by paired t-test. As a result, all measurements of P, MSD and ISD groups showed favorable reliability and reproducibility. Most of measurements for space analysis in MSD group and TW in ISD group also presented high validity. AL and ALD presented statistically significant difference between P and ISD group. The validity of measurements of space analysis in ISD group was short in doubt to valid, but clinically acceptable. Both MSD and ISD are clinically acceptable to use for space analysis but clinician should be aware that errors can be found using a digital model.

• 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 the Korean dental association
• /
• v.58 no.4
• /
• pp.194-205
• /
• 2020

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the inter-arch relationship of digital models generated using two types of intraoral scanners. Methods: In total, 34 plaster model samples were used. Two corresponding digital models were created using two types of intraoral scanners. A total of 15 variables were measured. The plaster model was directly measured using a digital caliper, while the digital models were measured using a software. The accuracy of the measurements was evaluated using repeated measures analysis of variance and the Friedman test. Results: Among the 15 measurements, 6 measurements[Overjet, Overbite, DZ_11-41 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right central incisor and mandibular right central incisor), DZ_16-46 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right first molar and mandibular right first molar), DZ_13-33 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary right canine and mandibular left canine), and DZ_23-43 (Distance between the gingival zenith of maxillary left canine and mandibular right canine)]showed statistically significant differences, with DZ_23-43 showing the largest difference of 0.18 mm. The other measurements showed no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: Regardless of the type of scanner used for preparation, digital models can be used as clinically acceptable alternatives to conventional plaster models.