Influence of rescanning mesh holes and stitching procedures on the complete-arch scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vitro study

Calibrated splinting framework for complete arch intraoral implant digital scans manufactured by combining milled and additively manufacturing technologies: A dental technique

Splinting frameworks are intended to increase the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital implant scans. This article describes a technique that uses a calibrated splinting framework manufactured by combining milled and additively manufacturing technologies (IOSRing) for assisting with complete arch intraoral digital implant scanning. The splinting framework contains milled truncated cone-shape markers whose position in the metal framework is measured during the manufacturing process with a coordinate measurement machine. This framework splints the modified implant scan bodies and assists in the complete arch intraoral implant digital scanning. Computer-aided design procedures are then used to calculate the implant position on the virtual definitive implant cast by using the position of the calibrated markers as a reference.

Effects of the intraoral scanner and implant library on the trueness of digital impressions in the full-arch implant scan: A comparative in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of intraoral scanners (IOSs) and implant libraries (ILs) on the trueness of digital impressions for the fabrication of implant-supported full-arch (FA) prostheses.

METHODS

A stone cast of an edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and cylindrical scanbodies (IPD ProCam®, Matarò, Barcelona, Spain) was probed using a coordinate measuring machine to capture a reference model (RM). The cast was mounted on a mannequin and scanned with 3 different IOSs (iTERO Element 5D Plus®, Align Technologies, San José, CA, USA; IS 3800®, Dexis, Quackertown, PN, USA; and i-700®, Medit, Seoul, South Korea). Ten scans were performed by an experienced operator using each IOS, first capturing only the occlusal surfaces, then the buccal and finally the palatal surfaces (less than 45 s per scan). In each scan, the meshes of the SBs were replaced by the corresponding IL file, with and without increment, to obtain the best correction for the mesh growth. The positions of the SBs in each file were compared with those in the RM, to evaluate the linear and cross distances between them. The final outcome was the trueness of the different IOSs, evaluating the effect of using different ILs on the quality of the impressions.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between the different IOS scans and the RM, and among the different IOSs, in the different segments. The correction of the mesh growth through incremental ILs did not affect the final trueness of the IOS scans.

CONCLUSIONS

Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated, in the different scan segments, but with the cylindrical SBs used herein, the correction of the mesh growth with incremental ILs did not affect the final quality of the digital impressions.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There are still errors with IOS in the FA impressions. IOS have an effect on the quality of the digital impressions, and apparently the library has not, with purely cylindrical SBs: further studies are needed to confirm this aspect.

Augmented reality assisted intraoral scanning of mandibular arch: A proof-of-concept pilot clinical study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether the scanning time, trueness and number of photos are influenced when augmented reality (AR) heads-up display (HUD) is utilized during the intraoral scan of fully dentate mandibular arches.

METHODS

A total of 10 patients (6 females and 4 males) were included. The mandibular arch of each patient was scanned twice using an intraoral scanner (Trios4 Pod IOS: 3Shape): one with and one without AR-HUD (ML2; Magic Leap). Further, alginate impression was taken, and the cast was digitized to acquire the reference model for trueness comparison (T310, Medit). The scan time and number of photos were recorded. Trueness was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively using colored heat maps and RMSE values respectively. t-test was used to evaluate the difference in scan time, trueness, and number of photos between the two groups (α = .05).

RESULTS

AR-assisted IOS resulted in significantly faster scan time (44 s) compared to the time consumed following conventional scan method without AR-HUD (63 s) (P = <0.001). The number of photos was also significantly less with AR-assisted IOS (836) compared to IOS using conventional technique without AR-HUD (1209) P = <0.001. No statistical difference was detected in RMSE between the test groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of AR technology with IOS process represents a promising potential to acquire digital impressions with reduced scan acquisition time and reduced images count while simultaneously maintaining the trueness of the acquired scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Augmented Reality presents an emerging potential in Prosthodontics to acquire digital impressions with decreased number of images and acquisition time.

Effect of cut-out rescanning protocol on the accuracy of digital impressions in convergent implants positioned at varying depths: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the effect of the "cut-out rescan" strategy on the accuracy of intraoral digital scans from 25° convergent implants positioned at two distinct depths.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two customized models were fabricated, each designated to receive two posterior converged implant fixtures: one at a depth of 1 mm and the other at a depth of 4 mm. Initially, the models were scanned as reference casts using a lab scanner. The test group was involved in scanning the 1-mm and 4-mm implant models using an intraoral scanner in the following order: (1) scanning the 1-mm (T1; n = 10) and (2) 4-mm (T4; n = 10) implant groups with scan bodies connected to both fixtures in each model; (3) cut-out rescan (COR) in the 1-mm (COR1; n = 10) and (4) 4-mm (COR4; n = 10) models, leading to 40 digital files in standard tessellation language format. The mean absolute deviation (MAD), in terms of trueness and precision, between the experimental and control scans was assessed through the alignment of their respective datasets using three-dimensional analysis software. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Levene's tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The COR4 group exhibited the highest MAD, indicative of both trueness and precision (Mean ±SD: 55.659 ±34.802). In contrast, the T1 group demonstrated the lowest MAD (Mean ±SD: 43.225 ±19.237). However, the ANOVA analysis showed no significant influence of depth (P = 0.506) or type of scan (P = 0.442) on the MAD. Precision also did not differ significantly across groups (P = 0.071).

CONCLUSIONS

The cut-out rescan approach demonstrated an accuracy comparable to that of the one-time scan method.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Digital intraoral scanning provides clinicians with a range of tools to navigate challenging conditions in which conventional methods may prove difficult, such as cases involving angled adjacent implants. In these scenarios, the cut-out rescan tool serves as a valuable resource, aiding clinicians in overcoming the challenges associated with impression-making owing to the convergence of placed implants.

Effect of different surface locking patterns on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The effect of different surface locking patterns on the trueness of a digital implant scan of a completely edentulous arch remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether locking surfaces with different patterns affected the trueness of complete arch implant digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary cast with 4 implants (2 anterior implants parallel and 2 posterior implants tilted at 17 degrees) was fabricated. Four implant-level scan bodies were fixed onto the implants, and the cast was scanned with a desktop scanner to create the reference file. Four groups (L0, L1, L2, and L3) were formed, each with a distinct locking surface configuration, and all scans were made using the same intraoral scanner. L0 kept all 4 implant-level scan bodies during scanning. L1 involved removing the right first premolar (RPM) scan body, scanning the other 3 implant scan bodies, then reattaching the RPM's scan body, and continuing scanning. In L2, the RPM and right lateral incisor (RIC) scan bodies were removed, followed by scanning the left implants to create a locking surface, and scanning the right implants. In L3, only the left posterior molar's (LPM) scan body was retained and scanned; then a locking surface was generated, and then the remaining implants were scanned. A metrology software program (Geomagic Control X) was used for comparison. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis, the 1-way ANOVA, the Welch ANOVA, the Friedman test, the repeated-measures ANOVA, the Bonferroni post hoc test, and the Games-Howell post hoc test (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant 3D surface deviations were observed in the coronal bevel (CB) region and in the entire scan bodies when assessing trueness in the L0, L1, L2, and L3 groups (P<.001). L2 exhibited the highest discrepancies in 3D surface deviation for CB (0.030 ±0.002 mm) and implant scan bodies (0.357 ±0.052 mm) and distance deviation, while the highest mean angular deviation values were found in L0 (0.924 ±0.131 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS

Locking half of the arch showed the highest trueness discrepancies when performing digital scans for complete arch implant-supported prostheses.

Influence of apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners with various focal lengths and scanning technologies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Limited studies have reported the influence of finish line location on the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). Focal length is a hardware characteristic of IOSs. Whether there is a relationship between scanning accuracy of tooth preparations with the finish located at different apical positions and focal length and IOS technology or system remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present in vitro study was to assess the influence of the apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the accuracy of 4 IOSs with various focal lengths and scanning technologies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710). Afterwards, a removable die was created on the prepared first molar of the virtual cast and duplicated to create 4 dies with different apical finish line locations: 2- or 1-mm supragingival, 0-mm or equigingival, and -0.5-mm or intracrevicular. The cast and die designs were additively fabricated (Asiga Pro 4K with Keystone Model Ultra). Each die was independently scanned by using the same laboratory scanner (reference scans). Four groups were created: TRIOS 5, i700, iTero, and Primescan. Four subgroups were developed depending on the apical position of the finish line (n=15). In each subgroup, the cast was assembled by positioning the corresponding die into the cast. The cast was then scanned by using the corresponding IOS. The reference scans were used as a control to compute the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the preparation and margin of the preparation areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum test were used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Trueness discrepancies in the preparation area were found among the groups (P=.010) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P<.001). The -0.5 mm location obtained significantly worse trueness in the preparation area. The TRIOS 5 and i700 obtained the best trueness in the preparation area. Trueness discrepancies in the margin area were found among the groups (P=.002) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P=.004). The -0.5 mm location obtained the worst trueness in the margin area. The i700 and Primescan obtained the best trueness in the margin area. Precision discrepancies were found in the preparation area (P<.001). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best precision in the preparation area (P=.001). Precision discrepancies in the margin area were obtained (P<.001). The 1-mm subgroup obtained the best precision (P=.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The apical position of the finish line of the tooth preparation tested affected the trueness and precision of the IOSs tested.

Influence of scanning pattern on accuracy, time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans: A clinical study

OBJECTIVES

To measure the influence of scanning pattern on the accuracy, time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral implant scans.

METHODS

A maxillary edentulous patient with 7 implants was selected. The reference implant cast was obtained using conventional methods (7Series Scanner). Four groups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the complete-arch implant scans by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4): manufacturer's recommended (Occlusal-Buccal-Lingual (OBL)), zig-zag (Zig-zag), circumferential (Circumf), and novel pattern that included locking an initial occlusal scan (O-Lock group) (n = 15). Scanning time and number of photograms were recorded. The linear and angular measurements were used to assess scanning accuracy. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness, scanning time, and number of photograms. The Levene test was selected to assess precision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in trueness were detected among OBL, Zig-zag, Circumf, and O-Lock regarding linear discrepancy (P<0.01), angular discrepancy (P<0.01), scanning time (P<0.01), and number of photograms (P<0.01). The O-Lock (63 ± 20 µm) showed the best linear trueness with statistically significant differences (P < 0.01) with Circumferential (86 ± 16 µm) and OBL (87 ± 19 µm) groups. The O-Lock (93.5 ± 13.4 s, 1080 ± 104 photograms) and Circumf groups (102.9 ± 15.1 s, 1112 ± 179 photograms) obtained lower scanning times (P < 0.01) and number of photograms (P < 0.01) than OBL (130.3 ± 19.4 s, 1293 ± 161 photograms) and Zig-zag (125.7 ± 22.1 s, 1316 ± 160 photograms) groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The scanning patterns tested influenced scanning accuracy, time, and number of photograms of the complete-arch scans obtained by using the IOS tested. The zig-zag and O-Lock scanning patterns are recommended to obtain complete-arch implant scans when using the selected IOS.

Discrepancies of centric occlusion located by using a conventional method and four intraoral scanners combined with a computer-aided design program: A pilot investigation

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be used to record the maxillomandibular relationship at centric relation (CR). The articulated digital scans can be imported into a dental computer-aided design (CAD) program and used to locate centric occlusion (CO); however, the accuracy of the CO recorded by using IOSs and a dental CAD program remains unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the position of the CO located by using a conventional method and 4 IOSs combined with a dental CAD program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A patient volunteered to participate in this study. Conventional diagnostic stone casts were obtained. A facebow record (Kois Dentofacial Analyzer) was used to transfer the maxillary cast into a semi-adjustable articulator (Panadent PCH Articulator). A Kois deprogrammer (KD) was used to record the maxillomandibular relationship at CR and to transfer the mandibular cast into the articulator. Afterwards, CO was located in the articulated casts by removing the incisal pin and using an 8-µm articulating foil. CO was marked in the casts by using a blue articulating paper (control). Three groups were created based on the IOS used: TRIOS 4, iTero Element 5D Plus, i700, and Primescan. In each IOS group, a maxillary and mandibular scan were obtained. The scans were duplicated 10 times. Afterwards, a bilateral occlusal record captured with the KD was used to articulate each pair of duplicated scans. Each articulated specimen was imported into a CAD program (DentalCAD) and CO was virtually located. The teeth contacting at the CO of each specimen were compared with the control group. Categorical data were analyzed by using the chi-squared test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The chi-squared test revealed a significant association between the IOS system and the location of the CO (P=.004). The highest association was found between the TRIOS 4 and CO position, in which 100% of the specimens obtained the same CO position as in the conventional group. The lowest association was found between the i700 and CO position. In the i700 group, 20% of the specimens showed the same CO position as in the control group. A similar outcome was obtained in the iTero and Primescan groups. In both groups, 60% of the specimens demonstrated the same CO position as the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The IOS system used to acquire articulated scans at CR impacted the CO position located by using the evaluated digital methods. The TRIOS 4 system was the only IOS that consistently reproduced the same CO position as the conventional method.

Impact of Cut-out-rescan and Data Exchange by Over-scanning Techniques on Marginal Fit of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate Crowns

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the impact of adjustment procedures - cut-out-rescan (COR) and data exchange by over-scanning (DEOS) techniques - through CAD/CAM software on the marginal fit outcome of ceramic crowns.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Twenty-eight de-identified teeth were adapted in a mandibular typodont set. Tooth #19 was prepared for a lithium disilicate crown and seven groups, G0 to G6 (n=10), were created based on the rescanned areas (mesial and/or buccal) on the typodont using an intraoral scanner through COR or DEOS techniques. A digital workflow was used to design and mill 70 crowns according to the groups. Each crown was temporarily cemented on tooth #19 and scanned with micro-computed tomography to measure the marginal fit. The data were analyzed statistically by the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Mann-Whitney test to compare the groups pairwise as a post-hoc (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found for vertical misfit (μm) between the groups for Marginal Gap Buccal (MGB) and Marginal Gap Mesial (MGM) (p=0.003 and p=0.029, respectively). No significant difference was found for Finish Line Buccal (FLB) and Finish Line Mesial (FLM) (p=0.062 and p=0.092, respectively). G3 (COR buccal and mesial) had the highest MGB (57.75 μm), statistically different from all other groups. G4 (DEOS buccal) (41.60 μm) was different from G6 (DEOS buccal and mesial) (44.21 μm) (p=0.023). For MGM, G0 (control) (53.96 μm) was different from G5 (DEOS mesial) (45.76 μm) and G6 (DEOS buccal and mesial) (48.56 vm) (p=0.013 and p=0.041, respectively) and G2 (COR mesial) (58.43 μm) was different from G5 (DEOS mesial) (45.76 μm) (p=0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a statistically significant difference in certain groups for both techniques, COR and DEOS techniques are viable options for image editing during acquisition. Lithium disilicate crowns can be produced with satisfactory marginal gap values utilizing a chairside CAD/CAM system.

Intraoral scanners as tracking devices: A dental protocol for assessing volumetric changes between intraoral scans

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are digital data acquisition technologies that ease the recording of virtual diagnostic casts. Some IOSs have a specific software tool to assess volumetric changes between 2 scans acquired on the patient at different times. The scans are superimposed and volumetric differences between both meshes are reported. However, these software tools may be limited to scans captured only by the IOS of the same manufacturer. The present manuscript describes a protocol for comparing volumetric changes between 2 scans recorded using any IOS. Additionally, 1 of the scans is divided into 3 sections to minimize the alignment distortion and maximize the evaluation of the volumetric changes.

Augmented-reality-assisted intraoral scanning: A proof-of-concept study

PURPOSE

The aims of the present study were (a) to compare the scanning time and image count to complete optical scans of a typodont between augmented-reality-assisted intraoral scanning (ARIOS) and intraoral scanning (IOS); (b) to compare the accuracy of the digital casts derived from ARIOS and IOS; (c) to compare participant-related outcomes between ARIOS and IOS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multi-session within-subject experiment was conducted to compare ARIOS and IOS. Thirty-one dental students participated in the study. Following a trial session, each participant obtained optical scans under ARIOS and IOS conditions. The time required to complete the scan, and the number of images taken were recorded. Participant feedback was collected using entry, exit, and NASA-Task Load Index (TLX) surveys. The accuracy of the digital casts derived from the optical scans was measured in root mean square error (RMSE).

RESULTS

The present study found a 6.8% increase in preference for ARIOS from entry to exit survey. Slightly more participants favored the ARIOS setup compared to IOS; 54.8% of participants favored ARIOS, 9.7% were indifferent, and 35.5% favored IOS. NASA-TLX subscale ratings were higher for IOS in general apart from mental demand. The accuracy of the digital casts between ARIOS and IOS was comparable in RMSE.

CONCLUSION

ARIOS was advantageous compared to IOS in ergonomics, improved scanner tracking, and ease of scanner orientation. However additional trials, increased field of view, and better superimposition of scanning status to the target site were improvements desired by the study participants.

Influence of repeated cut-off and rescanning on the trueness of the intraoral digital scans

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of repeated cut-off and rescan procedures on the trueness of three intraoral scanners (IOS).

METHODS

A tooth model (#16) with a standard class II cavity was prepared, and the complete-arch was scanned using a laboratory scanner (D2000, 3Shape A/S) to obtain a reference scan. Then the typodont was scanned with three IOSs (3Shape TRIOS 3, CEREC Omnicam, and Medit i500) under two rescanning strategies (full-cut and partial-cut), with varying numbers of repeated cut-off and rescanning procedures (0, 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10). The trueness discrepancy between the reference and experimental digital scan was estimated using root mean square (RMS) calculations. Three regions of interest were selected to represent the rescanning, identification, and non-rescan area. And the discrepancies were analyzed using a linear mixed model (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Cut-off and rescanning procedures significantly decreased the trueness of digital scans in all test conditions compared to the reference. However, no progressive increase in discrepancy was observed under any rescan conditions. Significant influences on trueness were found based on the IOS used, with the 3Shape system exhibiting lower RMS values. The partial-cut strategy showed lower RMS values compared to the full-cut strategy, albeit without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

While repeated cut-off and rescanning procedures led to a decline in the quality of digital impressions, they did not result in discrepancy accumulation with repeated rescanning.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

To ensure high scanning accuracy in dental practice, it is advisable to minimize the rescanning area when correcting imperfections in digital scans. Additionally, selecting an appropriate scanner can help mitigate the negative effects of the rescanning technique.

Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans.

METHODS

An experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure.

RESULTS

In the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ± 71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.

Influence of scanning protocol on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

This in-vitro study assessed the influence of two intraoral scanning (IOS) protocols on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of digital scans performed in edentulous arches.

METHODS

Twenty-two abutment-level master casts of edentulous arches with at least four implants were scanned repeatedly five times, each with two different scanning protocols. Protocol A (IOS-A) consisted of scanning the edentulous arch before inserting the implant scan bodies, followed by their insertion and its subsequent digital acquisition. Protocol B (IOS-B) consisted of scanning the edentulous arch with the scan bodies inserted from the outset. A reference scan from each edentulous cast was obtained using a laboratory scanner. Trueness and precision were calculated using the spatial fit analysis, cross-arch distance, and virtual Sheffield test. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Statistical significance was set at α = .05.

RESULTS

In the spatial fit test, the precision of average 3D distances was 45 μm (±23 μm) with protocol IOS-A and 25 μm (±10 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001), and the trueness of average 3D distances was 44 μm (±24 μm) with protocol IOS-A and 24 μm (±7 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001). Cross-arch distance precision was 59 μm (±53 μm) for IOS-A and 41 μm (±43 μm) for IOS-B (p = .0035), and trueness was 64 μm (±47 μm) for IOS-A and 50 μm (±40 μm) for IOS-B (p = .0021). Virtual Sheffield precision was 286 μm (±198 μm) for IOS-A and 146 μm (±92 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001), and trueness was 228 μm (±171 μm) for IOS-A and 139 μm (±92 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The IOS-B protocol demonstrated significantly superior accuracy. Placement of scan bodies before scanning the edentulous arch is recommended to improve the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scanning.

Influence of the ambient color lighting on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using two intraoral scanners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The influence of different ambient factors including lighting has been previously studied. However, the influence of ambient color lighting settings on intraoral scanning accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of ambient color lighting on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using 2 intraoral scanners (IOSs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary cast with 6 implant scan bodies was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (DW-7-140) to obtain a reference file. Two groups were created based on the IOS tested: TRIOS 4 (IOS-1) and i700 (IOS-2). Seven subgroups were developed depending on the ambient color lighting (red, green, blue, yellow, cyan, magenta, and white) (n=15). Scanning accuracy was analyzed by using a metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). The Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparisons were used to analyze the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant trueness and precision values were found across the groups (P<.05) and subgroups (P<.05). For IOS-1, blue ambient lighting obtained the best trueness (19.8 ±1.8 µm) (P<.05); in precision, white light (20.8 ±7.3 µm) and blue light (22.1 ±13.5) showed the best results (P<.05). For IOS-2, white light showed the best trueness (51.9 ±16.7 µm); the best precision was obtained under magenta (38.6 ±10.4 µm) and yellow light (52.6 ±24.0 µm) (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal ambient color lighting varied between the IOSs assessed. As the best condition for maximizing accuracy was not found, ambient color lighting must be individualized for the IOS system used.

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Multiple factors can influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). However, the impact of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of IOSs for fabricating tooth-supported crowns remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present in vitro study was to measure the influence of scan extension (half or complete arch scan) and the starting quadrant (same quadrant or contralateral quadrant of the location of the crown preparation) on the accuracy of four IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710) to obtain a reference scan. Four scanner groups were created: TRIOS 5, PrimeScan, i700, and iTero. Then, 3 subgroups were defined based on the scan extension and starting quadrant: half arch (HA subgroup), complete arch scan starting on the left quadrant (CA-same subgroup), and complete arch scan starting on the right quadrant (CA-contralateral subgroup), (n=15). The reference scan was used as a control to measure the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the tooth preparation, margin of the tooth preparation, and adjacent tooth areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

For the tooth preparation analysis, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.002). The iTero and TRIOS5 groups obtained better trueness than the PrimeScan and i700 groups (P<.001). Moreover, half arch scans obtained the best trueness, while the CA-contralateral scans obtained the worst trueness (P<.001). The iTero group showed the worst precision among the IOSs tested. For the margin of the tooth preparation evaluation, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The iTero group obtained best trueness (P<.001), but the worst precision (P<.001) among the IOSs tested. Half arch scans obtained the best trueness and precision values. For the adjacent tooth analysis, trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best trueness and precision. Half arch scans obtained the best accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Scan extension and the starting quadrant impacted the scanning trueness and precision of the IOSs tested. Additionally, the IOSs showed varying scanning discrepancies depending on the scanning area assessed. Half arch scans presented the highest trueness and precision, and the complete arch scans in which the scan started in the contralateral quadrant of where the crown preparation was obtained the worst trueness and precision.

Optical impressions assessment for overlay restorations with rubber dam: A clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The possibility of making impressions of teeth prepared with a rubber dam in place has been proposed; however, this requires trimming and rescanning the mesh, which has been described as a cause of accuracy loss. This study aims to clinically determine whether overlay restorations obtained from a scan with a rubber dam in place have equivalent marginal fit, contact points, and occlusal fit to the same type of restorations obtained from a scan without a rubber dam.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty patients who underwent overlay restoration of a molar with at least one neighbouring tooth were selected. After tooth preparation, two scans were performed: one without a rubber dam and the other with a rubber dam. Restorations were randomly created from one scan or another. The marginal fit, interproximal contact points, and occlusal fit were evaluated clinically. Two meshes, with and without rubber dams, were also compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the clinical evaluation of the overlays made of the two meshes. The trueness of the mesh from the impression made with a rubber dam with respect to the mesh without a rubber dam was about 40 µm in the critical areas of the preparation (margins, intaglio, and interproximal contact points).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that under the conditions performed and with the equipment used, there are no significant clinical differences between overlay restorations made from a scan with a rubber dam and those made from a scan without a rubber dam.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scanning with a rubber dam in place may be a valid option for certain types of restorations under certain clinical conditions.

Effect of different intraoral scanning strategies on the marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay restorations: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Whether the scanning strategy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) affects the accuracy of the digital recording for an indirect ceramic inlay restoration is unclear. Furthermore, which strategy would be optimal and most effective is uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the impact of 3 different scanning strategies using the Carestream CS 3700 IOS on the marginal and internal fit of a mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) ceramic inlay restoration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A typodont master model (ANA-4 VCER; Frasaco) was used with a standardized preprepared MOD inlay maxillary first molar typodont tooth (ANA-4 ZP16 CER99-008; Frasaco) (N=30). These inlay preparations were scanned with the CS 3700 IOS using 3 different scanning strategies: linear, wave, and S-figure scanning strategies. Each scan strategy group was scanned 10 times for all groups to obtain 30 standard tessellation language (STL) files. Thirty restorations were milled from lithium disilicate CAD blocks (IPS e.max; Ivoclar AG) and cemented into their typodont-prepared inlay cavities. A single examiner used a stereomicroscope to measure the marginal and internal gaps at the predetermined points. A 1-way ANOVA was used for the statistical analysis, followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment. All tests were 2-tailed (α=.05).

RESULTS

All scanning strategy groups demonstrated statistically significant differences for the marginal and internal fit of the inlay restorations (P<.001). Overall, the linear scanning strategy showed the lowest mean marginal and internal gap values (29.2 ±3.6 µm and 39.0 ±6.4 µm), followed by the wave scanning strategy, which had comparable mean marginal and internal gap values: 49.1 ±3.6 µm and 48.2 ±6.0 µm, respectively. The S-figure scan strategy had the highest mean marginal and internal gap values: 50.2 ±12.6 µm and 71.3 ±7.7 µm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Inlay restorations scanned by the linear scan strategy had the best marginal and internal fit when scanned with the CS 3700 IOS.

Accuracy of intraoral scanners in different complete arch scan patterns

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanners and complete arch scans remains controversial.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of 3 intraoral scanners with various scan patterns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four standard metal spheres were installed on a dental maxillary cast according to American National Standard/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) specification no. 132. Six distances among the center of spheres were measured with a coordinate measuring machine and used as references. Four different scanning patterns were assigned: zigzag, occlusal-palatal-buccal, occlusal-buccal-palatal, and molar-to-canine. Dental Wings and TRIOS 3 applied to the first 3 scan patterns, while True Definition applied to all patterns (n=30). Six distances in the scan files were also measured and calculated for relative errors of trueness and precision. A ratio less than 0.0025 was considered acceptable and used for binary outcome analysis. Differences among scanners and scan patterns in terms of trueness and precision were analyzed with the chi-squared test, Fisher exact test, and logistic regression (α=.05).

RESULTS

The zigzag scan pattern from TRIOS 3 and the occlusal-buccal-palatal pattern from True Definition exhibited 100% acceptable precision. TRIOS 3 revealed the highest number of acceptable trueness values in the occlusal-palatal-buccal scan (88.3%). The scan patterns from Dental Wings and TRIOS 3 were related to the trueness. TRIOS 3 and True Definition were 12.8 and 6.4 times more likely to obtain acceptable trueness than Dental Wings (P<.001). The zigzag scan pattern had the highest chance of obtaining acceptable trueness.

CONCLUSIONS

The scan patterns influenced the trueness and precision of the intraoral scanners in different ways. For the best trueness, TRIOS 3 should be applied with an occlusal-palatal-buccal scan pattern, Dental Wings should be applied with a zigzag scan pattern, while True Definition can be used with any scan pattern.

A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

OBJECTIVES

To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

OVERVIEW

Multiple operator- and patient-related factors have been identified that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scan extension. However, the decision criteria for selecting scan extension for fabricating tooth- and implant-supported restorations is unclear. Based on the extension of the intraoral digital scans, three types of scans can be defined: half-arch (anterior or posterior), extended half-arch, and complete-arch scan. Variables to consider when choosing the scan extension include the number and location of units being restored, as well as the extension and location of edentulous areas. Additionally, the accuracy of the virtual definitive cast and the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured by using IOSs should be differentiated.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision tree for selecting the scan extension is presented. The decision is based on the number and location of units being restored, and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with reduced scan extension are indicated when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported crowns or short-span fixed prostheses, when the patient does not have more than one missing tooth in the area of the dental arch included in the scan. For the remaining clinical conditions, complete-arch intraoral scans are recommended.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scan extension is a clinician's decision that should be based on the number and location of units being restored and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with a reduced scan extension is recommended, when possible.

Influence of interdental spaces and the palate on the accuracy of maxillary scans acquired using different intraoral scanners

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of interdental spaces and scanning the palate on the accuracy of maxillary scans acquired using three intraoral scanners (IOSs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A virtual completely dentate maxillary cast without interdental spaces was obtained and modified to create 1, 2, and 3 mm of interdental spacing between the anterior teeth. These three files (reference standard tessellation language files) were used to print three reference casts. The reference casts were scanned using three IOSs: TRIOS4, iTero Element 5D, and Aoralscan2. Three groups were created based on the interdental spaces: 0, 1, 2, and 3 mm (n = 10). The groups were subdivided into two subgroups: no palate (NP subgroup) and palate (P subgroup). The reference STL files were used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by calculating the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness ranged from 91 to 139 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 23 μm among the subgroups tested. A significant correlation was found between IOS*group (p<0.001) and IOS*subgroup ( p<0.001). Tukey test showed significant trueness differences among the interdental spaces tested (p<0.001). The 1- and 2-mm groups obtained better trueness than the 0- and 3-mm groups (p<0.001). An 11 μm mean trueness discrepancy was measured among the different interdental space groups tested. The P subgroups demonstrated significantly higher trueness when compared to the NP subgroups (p<0.001). The discrepancy between the maxillary scans with and without the palate was 4 μm. Significant precision discrepancies were found (p = 0.008), with the iTero group showing the lowest precision.

CONCLUSION

Interdental spaces and incorporation of the palate on maxillary intraoral scans influenced trueness and precision of the three IOSs tested. However, the scanning discrepancy measured may be of no clinical relevance.

Effect of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanners: a meta-analysis of in vitro studies

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of intraoral scanners is influenced by different scanning strategies in an in vitro setting, through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 standard. The following PICOS approach was used: population, tooth impressions; intervention, the use of intraoral scanners with scanning strategies different from the manufacturer's instructions; control, the use of intraoral scanners following the manufacturers' requirements; outcome, accuracy of intraoral scanners; type of studies, in vitro. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases including Embase, SciELO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were based on in vitro studies that reported the accuracy of digital impressions using intraoral scanners. Analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3.5; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Global comparisons were made using a standardized mean difference based on random-effect models, with a significance level of α = 0.05.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 15 articles. Digital impression accuracy significantly improved under dry conditions (P < 0.001). Moreover, trueness and precision were enhanced when artificial landmarks were used (P ≤ 0.02) and when an S-shaped pattern was followed (P ≤ 0.01). However, the type of light used did not have a significant impact on the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanners (P ≥ 0.16).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of digital intraoral scanners can be enhanced by employing scanning processes using artificial landmarks and digital impressions under dry conditions.

In vitro study of the accuracy and efficiency of wireless intraoral scanners at various battery levels

OBJECTIVES

To determine the trueness and precision of 2 wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) under various battery levels, and assess scanning efficiency.

METHODS

A maxillary cast with 4 metal spheres attached was fabricated. Two wireless IOSs (TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4) were evaluated under 3 battery levels (1-30%, 31-60%, and 61-100%; n = 30). Six horizontal distances and 1 vertical distance were measured between 4 spherical centers and 1 generated plane. The distance deviations were determined with a coordinate-measuring machine data set. Kruskal-Wallis and Levene tests were used to analyze trueness and precision. Scan time and the number of three-dimensional (3D) images captured were analyzed by using a 2-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

In terms of trueness and precision, no significant differences were found at various battery levels over the majority of the measured distances. TRIOS 4 demonstrated better trueness than TRIOS 3 for cross-arch scan. The 61-100% battery level resulted in the shortest scan time and the least number of 3D images captured (p < 0.001). Scan time and number of 3D images captured were strongly correlated for TRIOS 3 (r = 0.66) and TRIOS 4 (r = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in battery level had no impact on the trueness and precision of TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4. High battery level IOSs resulted in faster scans and fewer 3D images captured with less storage space. TRIOS 4 scanned faster, captured fewer images, and demonstrated better trueness than TRIOS 3.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although all battery levels of wireless IOSs provide comparable trueness and precision, a wireless IOS with a high battery level is more time efficient than one with a low battery level in complete-arch scan.

Accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners versus a desktop scanner

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and a desktop scanner.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complete arch implant-supported interim prosthesis was designed and milled in polymethylmethacrylate. Six reverse scanbodies (ScAnalog) were connected to the implant-prosthetic connections and twenty scans were made extraorally using four IOS devices (TRIOS 3, TRIOS 5, Primescan v.5.2, Medit i700W) and one desktop scanner (E4 RED). A coordinate machine (ATOS Q GOM) was used to assess the milling distortion. The scanbody positions were compared to the reference CAD design using metrology software. Linear and angular measurements per implant-prosthetic connection were considered for trueness and precision. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test.

RESULTS

Trueness values were 118.14 ± 25.49 µm for TRIOS 3, 84.62 µm ±19.10 for TRIOS 5, 106.39 ± 27.58 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 120.25 ± 27.44 µm for Medit i700W and 65.36 ± 4.66 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in mean trueness values were found among IOS and E4 RED. Precision values were 108 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 3, 86 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 5, 104 ± 55 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 90 ± 54 µm for Medit i700W and 18 ± 11 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in precision were found between IOS and E4 RED.

CONCLUSIONS

A chairside reverse scanbody workflow with IOS remains less accurate compared to similar workflow with a desktop scanner.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A chairside reverse scanbody workflow is a valuable alternative but the IOS device should be selected with caution because in the present study, only TRIOS5 was capable to achieve an accuracy below the clinical acceptable thresholds. The use of a desktop scanner remains the best choice for this clinical workflow. Additionally, the milling distortion of the interim prosthesis plays a major role in this reverse scanbody workflow and should be kept as low as possible.

Clinical evaluation of the effects of cutting off, overlapping, and rescanning procedures on intraoral scanning accuracy

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Cutting off and rescanning procedures have been shown to affect the accuracy of intraoral scanning; however, the clinical impact of tooth cutting off and rescanning of mesh holes on accuracy remains unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the influence of the tooth location of the rescanned mesh holes (with or without modifying the preexisting intraoral digital mesh with the rescanning procedures) on intraoral scanning accuracy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary right quadrant digital scan was acquired (control scan) on a dentate participant by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4). The control scan was duplicated 240 times and distributed among 4 groups depending on the location of the rescanned mesh hole: first molar (M group), second premolar (PM group), canine (C group), and central incisor (I group). Each group was divided into 2 subgroups: one subgroup contained overlapping rescanning modifications (WO subgroup), and the other blocked the preexisting digital scan to avoid further modifications when rescanning (NO subgroup) (n=30). A software program (Geomagic) was used to assess the discrepancy between the control and the experimental meshes by using the root mean square (RMS) error calculation. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed that data were not normally distributed. The Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc Dunn test with Bonferroni correction were used to analyze the RMS mean discrepancies (α=.05). The Levene test was used to analyze the equality of the variances.

RESULTS

Trueness ranged from 15 to 17 μm with a precision of 4 μm among the subgroups in which the existing digital scan was blocked, but the trueness ranged from 42 to 72 μm and the precision ranged from 15 to 47 μm among the subgroups in which the rescanning procedures allowed the modification of the existing digital scan. Significant trueness differences were found among the groups tested (P<.05). Significant differences in the RMS values were computed between the WO and NO subgroups for each group (M (P<.001): PM (P<.001); C (P<.001), and I (P<.001) groups), but the effect of the tooth mesh hole location demonstrated no significant difference either among the WO (P>.999) or NO subgroups (P>.999). Furthermore, the NO groups showed markedly better precision than the WO groups for each tooth location. The I-WO group showed better precision than the groups C-WO, PM-WO, and M-WO. However, when no overlapping was allowed, no difference was found in precision between the different tooth locations tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescanning procedures influenced intraoral scanning accuracy. Allowing further modification of the preexisting intraoral digital scan demonstrated a significantly decreased scanning accuracy. However, tooth location of the rescanned mesh hole did not impact scanning accuracy.

A Comprehensive Review of Factors That Influence the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have become increasingly popular in the field of dentistry for capturing accurate digital impressions of patients' teeth and oral structures. This study investigates the various factors influencing their accuracy. An extensive search of scholarly literature was carried out via PubMed, utilizing appropriate keywords. Factors evaluated in the included studies were categorized into three primary divisions: those related to the operator, the patient, and the IOS itself. The analysis demonstrated that the accuracy of intraoral scanning is influenced by various factors such as scanner selection, operator skill, calibration, patient's oral anatomy, ambient conditions, and scanning aids. Maintaining updated software and understanding factors beyond scanner resolution are crucial for optimal accuracy. Conversely, smaller IOS tips, fast scanning speeds, and specific scanning patterns compromise the accuracy and precision. By understanding these factors, dental professionals can make more informed decisions and enhance the accuracy of IOSs, leading to improved final dental restorations.

Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the complete-arch scanning accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) to that of reference standard tessellation language (STL) files.

DATA

Studies comparing the trueness and precision of IOS STL files with those of reference STL scans for different arch types (dentate, edentulous, completely edentulous with implants, and partially edentulous with implants) were included in this study.

SOURCES

An electronic search of five databases restricted to the English Language was conducted in October 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 3,815 studies were identified, of which 114 were eligible for inclusion. After study selection and data extraction, pair-wise comparison and NMA were performed to define the accuracy of scanning for four arch subgroups using four outcomes (trueness and precision expressed as mean absolute deviation and root mean square values). Cochrane guidelines and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the risk of bias. GRADE was used for certainty assessment.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were included in this NMA. Altogether, 26 IOSs were compared directly and indirectly in 10 network systems. The accuracy of IOSs scans were not significantly different from the reference scans for dentate arches (three IOSs), edentulous arches (three IOSs), and completely edentulous arches with implants (one IOS). The accuracy of the IOSs was significantly different from the reference scans for partially edentulous arches with implants. Significant accuracy differences were found between the IOSs, regardless of clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of complete-arch scanning by IOSs differs based on clinical scenarios.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Different IOSs should be used according to the complete arch type.

Influence of the dental arch and number of cutting-off and rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of implant scans in partially edentulous situations

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of the dental arch and cutting-off and rescanning procedures on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans in partially edentulous arches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary and a mandibular partially edentulous typodont with implant abutment analogs placed in the right and left first molar and right central incisor sites were digitized to create reference models by using an industrial optical scanner (7 Series Desktop Scanner; Dentalwings). Two experimental groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S): the Maxillary group (Mx) and the Mandibular group (Mb). Four subgroups were generated depending on the number of rescanned mesh holes: No holes (Mx-G0, Mb-G0), 1 hole (Mx-G1, Mb-G1), 2 holes (Mx-G2, Mb-G2) and 3 holes (Mx-G3, Mb-G3). A 3-dimensional metrology software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems) was used to measure the difference between the reference and the experimental scans computing the root mean square (RMS) error calculation. Two-way ANOVA and a post-hoc Tukey test were used to analyze the trueness data (α=0.05). Levene test was used to evaluate the prevision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The Mx group obtained a trueness mean value of 54 ± 17 µm and a mean precision value of 54 ± 17 µm, while the Mb group presented a trueness mean value of 67 ± 23 µm and a mean precision value of 66 ± 22 µm. The Mx group demonstrated significantly better trueness than the Mb group (P<.001). The G0 and G1 subgroups had the highest trueness values among the subgroups tested. No significant difference was observed between G0 and G1, G1 and G2, and G2 and G3 subgroups in trueness and precision. However, the G0 had significantly better trueness and precision values compared to G2 and G3 subgroups. In addition, the G1 had significantly better trueness values than the G3 subgroup. However, the Levene test revealed no difference in the precision mean values among the subgroups tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant scanning trueness was affected by the dental arch and the number of rescanned mesh holes using the IOS tested. A higher number of rescanned mesh holes decreased the scanning trueness. The stitching algorithm of the IOS software tested after the mesh hole scan demonstrated a significant error, especially when multiples mesh holes are involved in the same arch.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Given that cutting-off and rescanning techniques can reduce trueness, clinicians should consider whether these techniques are necessary in complete digital workflows. This is particularly important when fabricating multiple single implant-supported restorations in the same arch.

Digitization accuracy and scannability of different prosthodontic materials: An in vitro trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital scanning of different prosthodontic materials is commonplace in contemporary practice. However, the scannability of prosthodontic materials has not been thoroughly investigated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and measure the unscanned area in a preset time limit of commonly used framework materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A mandibular acrylic resin reference dental typodont with 3 teeth, with the central one prepared for a complete coverage crown, was digitized by using a desktop scanner. A complete coverage crown was generated in standard tessellation language (STL) format. Three groups were created from the digital design according to the crown material: milled polyetheretherketone (PEEK), milled airborne-particle abraded titanium, and milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). They were scanned with the desktop scanner to be used as reference files for each group. The intraoral scanner Medit i700 was used to digitize each specimen 10 times (n=10). Using a nonmetrology grade software program, the deviations between the test STL file of the intraoral scanner and the reference STL file of the desktop scanner were assessed by using the RMS values. The unscanned surface area in a preset time limit of 6 seconds (scannability) was assessed. Groups were compared by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni correction when the results were significant. All tests were 2-tailed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Regarding deviation analysis, RMS discrepancies were computed, and significant differences in trueness were found (P<.001) among the 3 studied groups. The titanium group had the highest trueness followed by the PEEK and PMMA groups, which were statistically similar (P>.05). Precision differed significantly among the 3 studied groups (P<.001). PEEK was the most precisely scanned material followed by titanium, and the PMMA group had the least precision. Regarding scannability, there were overall significant differences (P<.001). Titanium was the most scannable, followed by PEEK and then PMMA.

CONCLUSIONS

Airborne-particle abraded titanium had better trueness and scannability than PEEK and PMMA. However, PEEK was the most precisely scanned material.

Effect of relative humidity on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of dentate complete arch intraoral digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have been used in dentistry for diagnostic and treatment purposes; however, the influence of environmental factors such as humidity or temperature on the accuracy of intraoral scanning is uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of relative humidity and ambient temperature on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of dentate complete arch intraoral digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A completely dentate mandibular typodont was digitized by using a dental laboratory scanner. Four calibrated spheres were attached following the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 20 896. A watertight box was designed to simulate 4 different relative humidity conditions (50%, 70%, 80%, and 90%) (n = 30). An IOS (TRIOS 3) was used to obtain a total of 120 complete arch digital scans (n = 120). Scanning time and number of photograms of each specimen were recorded. All the scans were exported and compared with the master cast by using a reverse engineering software program. The linear distances among the reference spheres were used to calculate trueness and precision. A unifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Levene tests followed by the post hoc Bonferroni test were used to analyze trueness and precision data, respectively. A unifactorial ANOVA followed by a post hoc Bonferroni test was also conducted to analyze scanning time and the number of photogram data.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found in trueness, precision, number of photograms, and scanning time (P<.05). Regarding trueness and precision, significant differences were found between the 50% and 70% relative humidity groups and the 80% and 90% relative humidity groups (P<.01). Regarding scanning time and number of photograms, significant differences were obtained among all groups, except between the 80% and 90% relative humidity groups (P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The relative humidity conditions tested influenced accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms in complete arch intraoral digital scans. High relative humidity conditions resulted in the decreased scanning accuracy, longer scanning time, and greater number of photograms of complete arch intraoral digital scans.

Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time

BACKGROUND

The appearance of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in dental offices was an important milestones for the digital innovations in dentistry. Knowing the learning curve for intraoral scanning is crucial, because it can serve as a guideline for clinicians before buying a new IOS. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve required by dental students for intraoral scanning with the 3Shape Trios 4 IOS and the CEREC Primescan IOS, based on scanning time.

METHODS

A total of 20 dental students with no previous experience in intraoral scanning participated in the present study. 10 students scanned with Trios 4® IOS (TRI) and 10 students took digital impressions with Primescan® IOS (CER). Every student created 15 digital impressions from patients. Prior to taking the impressions, theoretical and practical education was provided. The total scanning time included the upper and lower arches as well as bite registration, for which average values were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata package with a mixed-effects generalized least squares regression models.

RESULTS

The average total scanning times were the following: TRI - 205 s for the 1st impression, 133.6 s for the 15th, CER - 289.8 s for the 1st impression, 147 s for the 15th. The model-based estimate of the difference between the two in case of TRI was 57.5 s, and in CER was 144.2 s which is a highly significant improvement in both cases (P < 0.0001). The slope of the scanning time vs. learning phase curve gradually approached flatness, and maintained a plateau: TRI - from the 11th measurement and CER - from the 14th measurement onward.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the limitations of the present study, we found difference between the learning curve of scanner types which are operate various principle of imaging. In case of the TRI fewer digital impressions (11 repeating) were sufficient to reach the average scanning time of an experienced user than using CER (14 repeating).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number: 184/2022).

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).

RESULTS

Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.

Influence of type of restorative materials and surface wetness conditions on intraoral scanning accuracy

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of different restorative materials and surface wetness on intraoral scanning accuracy.

METHODS

Reference casts with an extracted second premolar and first and second molar were digitized (L2). Four groups were established according to the material of the first molar: natural tooth (control), zirconia (Z), lithium disilicate (LD), and nanoceramic resin crown (NC). Four subgroups were developed: dry, low-, mild-, and high-wetness subgroups (n=15). All the scans were completed by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). In the control-dry subgroup, the reference cast was dry. In the control-low subgroup, artificial saliva was sprayed with a 1 mL/min volumetric flow for 4 seconds. In the control-mild and control-high subgroups, the same procedures as in the control-low subgroup were performed, but with a volumetric flow of 4 and of 8 mL/min, respectively. In the Z, LD and NC groups, each crown was fabricated with its respective material. Trueness was analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests. The Levene and Bonferroni tests were used to assess precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Material (P<.001) and wetness (P<.001) significantly influenced trueness and precision. The mild and high subgroups revealed lower trueness and precision compared with the dry and low subgroups. The control, Z, and LD groups under dry and low wetness conditions showed better trueness compared with the NC group, but the materials tested had no significant precision discrepancies. Under mild wetness conditions, all the materials showed no significant trueness discrepancies. Under high wetness conditions, the LD group demonstrated the best trueness and precision.

CONCLUSIONS

The restorative materials and surface wetness tested influenced scanning trueness and precision of the IOS assessed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dried surfaces are recommended to maximize the scanning accuracy values of the IOS tested. Overall, the presence of saliva can reduce the performance of the IOS tested.

Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS), according to different scanning strategies and to the experience of the operator. Six IOS setups were used in this study. Ten scans of a complete epoxy-resin-made maxillary dental arch were performed with each IOS, using four different scanning techniques (manufacturer-suggested scanning strategy, cut-out rescan technique, simplified scanning technique, novel scanning technique). Scans were also performed by an expert operator in the field of digital dentistry. An operator with no experience in the field of intraoral scans performed 10 scans following each of the scanning strategy suggested by the manufacturer. The master model was scanned with an industrial high-resolution reference scanner to obtain a highly accurate digitized reference model. All the digital models were aligned with the reference model using a software aimed at comparing the STL files. A total of n = 300 scans were performed. Once the data were pooled, Medit i700 and Primescan obtained the best results in terms of both trueness and precision, showing no statistically significative differences (p > 0.05) to the first and the second scanning technique, Medit i700 scanner allowed to obtain the best values both in terms of trueness (24.4 ± 2.1 μm and 21.4 ± 12.9 μm, respectively) and precision compared to other IOS (23.0 ± 1.6 μm and 30.0 ± 18.0 μm, respectively). When considering the third scanning technique, Medit i700 recorded the best values in terms of trueness while Primescan recorded the best values in terms of precision (24.0 ± 2.7 μm and 26.8 ± 13.7 μm, respectively). When considering the two operators, significant differences between the two were found only with Medit i700 (p < 0.001). The examined IOS showed statistically significant differences in terms of trueness and precision. The used scanning strategy is a factor influencing the accuracy of IOS. Considering the expertise of the operators, clinically scanning strategies are not operative sensitive in terms of accuracy.

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

OBJECTIVES

To describe the factors related to the operator skills and decisions that influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision making when using IOSs and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.

OVERVIEW

Each IOS system is limited by the hardware and software characteristics of the selected device. The operator decisions that can influence the accuracy of IOSs include the scanning technology and system selection, scanning head size, calibration, scanning distance, exposure of the IOS to ambient temperature changes, ambient humidity, ambient lighting conditions, operator experience, scanning pattern, extension of the scan, cutting off, rescanning, and overlapping procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge and understanding of the operator factors that impact scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs and for successfully integrating IOSs in daily practices.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Operator skills and clinical decisions significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing operator factors for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

Influence of the surface humidity, implant angulation, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of implant angulation, humidity, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans.

METHODS

A definitive cast with 4 parallel implant abutment analogs (P group), and another cast with 4 angulated (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group) were digitized by using a scanner (7Series) (reference scans). Two subgroups were created: dry (D subgroup) and wet (W subgroup). For the D subgroup, the casts were digitized without altering the surface humidity by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 3). For the W subgroup, the cast surface was humidified with artificial saliva and digitized by using the same IOS. The interimplant distance discrepancies were assessed by computing linear and angular measurements. Trueness data was analyzed using 3-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey tests. The Bartlett test, followed by the pairwise comparison tests, was used to assess the precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Regarding the trueness, implant angulation (P<.001) and inter-implant distance measurement (P<.001) influenced the linear discrepancies. Implant angulation (P=.002), humidity conditions (P<.001), and inter-implant distance (P=.001) influenced the angular discrepancies. Regarding the precision, significant differences in the variance of linear and angular measurements and inter-implant distances were found. Humidity conditions (P<.001) influenced the scanning time.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation, humidity, and interimplant distance influenced the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans. Parallel implants resulted in higher trueness and precision values. Dry conditions resulted in slightly higher scanning trueness and precision and shorter scanning time.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Drying the surface being scanned increases intraoral scanning accuracy and decreases intraoral scanning time.

Three-dimensional analysis of the outcome of different scanning strategies in virtual interocclusal registration

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess whether scanning strategies of virtual interocclusal record (VIR) affect the accuracy of VIR during intraoral scanning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five pairs of reference cubes were added to the digital upper and lower dentitions of a volunteer, which were printed into resin casts. Subsequently, the resin casts were articulated in the maximal intercuspal position in a mechanical articulator and scanned with an industrial computed tomography system, of which the VIR was served as a reference VIR. The investigated VIR of the upper and lower jaws of the resin master cast were recorded with an intraoral scanner according to 9 designed scanning strategies. Then, the deviation between the investigated VIRs and reference VIR were analyzed, which were measured by the deviation of the distances of six selected reference points on the upper reference cubes in each digital cast to the XY-plane between the investigated VIRs and reference VIR.

RESULTS

For the deviation in the right posterior dentitions, RP group (only scanning of right posterior dentitions) showed the smallest deviation. Besides, BP group (scanning of bilateral posterior dentitions) showed the smallest deviation in the left posterior dentitions. Moreover, LP group (scanning of left posterior dentitions) showed the smallest deviation in the anterior dentitions. For the deviation of full dental arches, BP group showed the smallest deviation.

CONCLUSION

Different scanning strategies of VIR can influence the accuracy of alignment of virtual dental casts. Appropriate scanning strategies of VIR should be selected for different regions of interest and edentulous situations.

Effect of cut-out rescan procedures on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner used for digitizing an ear model: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the rescanning of mesh holes of different diameters on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner (IOS) used to digitize an ear model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An ear model was digitized using an intraoral scanner (Medit i500) to obtain a reference mesh. A baseline experimental scan was created by editing a duplicate of the reference mesh using the cut-out tool of the IOS software. Three equal groups were created based on the diameter of the cut-out areas: 2-mm (G1), 5mm (G2), and 8-mm (G3) (n = 15). The cut-out areas were rescanned and a total of 45 digital files were exported. The discrepancy between the reference and the experimental digital scans was measured using the root mean square calculation (RMS). The data were analyzed by a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

The trueness values ranged from 19.53 to 27.13 μm. There were significant differences in the RMS error values among the groups tested (p<.001) and post hoc multiple comparisons showed significant differences between the G1 and G2 groups (p = .04), G1 and G3 groups (p<.001), and G2 and G3 groups (p = .004). Overall, the precision values ranged from 4.93 to 7.73 μm and significant differences in the RMS values were only found between the G1 and G2 groups (p = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh hole rescanning affected the scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOS tested. The larger the diameter of the mesh holes, the less the trueness of the IOS tested. The precision values seemed to be less affected compared with the trueness by the cut-out and rescanning procedures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The accuracies of three intraoral scanners with regards to shade determination: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of three intraoral scanners for shade determination function in vitro, and to preliminarily investigate the shade-matching characteristics of the three intraoral scanners.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The shade of the middle third region of each shade tab on the Vita Classical A1-D4 shade guide (VC) was measured by a spectrophotometer (Vita Easyshade V, VE) and three intraoral scanners, including CEREC Omnicam (OM), 3Shape TRIOS 3 (T3), and TRIOS 4 (T4). A conversion table between VC values and CIELAB values was established from the database of VE to analyze the trueness. The reproducibility of the instruments was then compared by repeating the measurements five times.

RESULTS

The mean color difference for each instrument was highest in the OM, followed by the T4, and lowest in the T3 and VE, repectively. The L^* and a^* value for OM, and the b^* value for T4, were significantly different from those for VE (p <0.05). The reproducibility of the instrument was highest in the VE (Fleiss' kappa: 0.95), followed by the T3 (Fleiss' kappa: 0.89), T4 (Fleiss' kappa: 0.87), and OM (Fleiss' kappa: 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the three intraoral scanners, the trueness was best on the T3. The reproducibility of all the instruments was excellent. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Intraoral Digital Scans for Fabricating Tooth-Supported Prostheses Using a Custom Intraoral Scan Body

This article describes a technique to assist with intraoral digital scans for fabricating tooth-supported prostheses by using a custom intraoral scan body when the extension of the scan or the clinical characteristics might compromise the reliability of the intraoral digital scan. A preliminary intraoral scan of the tooth preparations is used to design a custom intraoral scan body which is manufactured using polymethylmethacrylate and a 5-axis milling machine. A low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane impression of the tooth preparations is obtained using the custom intraoral scan body. Subsequently, the custom intraoral scan body is digitized using an intraoral scanner. A design software program is used to align the digitized custom intraoral scan body with the preliminary intraoral scan to obtain the definitive virtual cast. This technique aims to reduce manual conventional laboratory procedures such as pouring dental impression or die trimming which might minimize inaccuracies on the virtual definitive cast.

Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the cutting-off and rescanning procedures have an impact on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the intraoral digital scan.

METHODS

A right quadrant digital scan (reference scan) of a participant was obtained using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). The reference scan was duplicated 135 times and divided into 3 groups based on the number of rescanned mesh areas: 1 (G1 group), 2 (G2 group), and 3 (G3 group) mesh holes. Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups depending on the mesh hole diameter: 2 mm- (G1-2, G2-2, and G3-2), 4 mm- (G1-4, G2-4, and G3-4), and 6 mm- (G1-6, G2-6, and G3-6) (n = 15). A software program (Geomagic; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) was used to assess the discrepancy between the reference and the experimental scans using the root mean square (RMS). Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc multiple comparison Dunn's tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness ranged from 5 to 20 µm and precision ranged from 2 to 10 µm. For trueness assessment, Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences on the RMS error values among the groups tested (P<.05). The G3-6 group obtained the lowest trueness and lowest precision values, while the G1-2, G1-4, G2-2, G2-4, and G3-2 groups computed the highest trueness and precision values. When comparing groups with the same number of rescanned mesh holes but with different diameter, the higher the diameter of the rescanned mesh hole, the lower the trueness values computed; however, when comparing groups with the same diameter of the rescanned mesh hole but with differing number of rescanned mesh holes, no significant differences were found in the RMS values among the groups. For the precision evaluation, Levene's test showed a lack of equality of the variances, and therefore of the standard deviations. The F-test with Bonferroni correction identified significant differences between the SDs between group G3-6 and all the other groups. When comparing instead the interquartile range (IQRs) due to the non-normality of the data, groups G1 and G2 also showed lower IQR values or higher precision than groups G3.

CONCLUSIONS

Cutting-off and rescanning procedures decreased the accuracy of the IOS tested. The higher the number and diameter of the rescanned areas, the lower the accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cutting-off and rescanning procedures should be minimized in order to increase the accuracy of the IOS evaluated. The intended clinical use of the intraoral digital scan is a critical factor that might determine the scanning workflow procedures.