Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience

Conventional and digital complete arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Varying complete arch digital-implant-scanning techniques have been described, but their accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of the implant angulation and impression method (conventional, intraoral digital scan, intraoral scan with a splinting framework, and combining cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and intraoral scan) on the accuracy of complete arch implant recording.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The following 2 casts were obtained: one with 4 parallel (P group) and the other with 4 angled (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group). Both the casts were digitized (7Series Scanner) (control file). The following 4 subgroups were created: conventional polyether impression with a splinted framework (CNV subgroup), intraoral scan (IOS subgroup), intraoral scan with a splinting framework (S-IOS subgroup), and intraoral scan combined with CBCT scan (CBCT-IOS subgroup) (n=10). For each file, an implant-supported bar was designed and imported into a program (Netfabb) to perform linear and angular interimplant abutment measurements. Two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and Tukey tests were selected to examine the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

Implant angulation (P=.010) and impression method (P=.003) significantly influenced the linear trueness. The P group (112 μm) obtained better linear trueness than the NP group (144 μm). The CNV subgroup obtained the best linear trueness, while the IOS and CBCT-IOS showed the worst trueness. Group (P<.001) significantly influenced angular trueness. Group (P=.009) and subgroup (P<.001) influenced the linear precision. The P group (72 μm) obtained better linear precision than the NP group (91 μm). The IOS subgroup obtained the best linear precision. Group (P=.034) significantly influenced the angular precision. The P group (0.46 degrees) had higher angular precision compared with the NP group (0.60 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation and the impression methods tested, impacted the accuracy of the complete arch implant recording. Parallel implants had better trueness and precision values than nonparallel implants. The conventional impression method showed the best trueness and precision. Among the digital implant scan methods assessed, the S-IOS and CBCT-IOS subgroups acquired significantly better trueness and precision than the IOS subgroup.

Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Studies are sparse on how splinting scan bodies or incorporating 3-dimensionally (3D) printed scan aids influence the trueness of complete arch digital scans.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of multisite implant recordings obtained using 6 different methods on an edentulous mandible.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A definitive cast of an edentulous mandible with 4 multi-unit analogs placed at different angles and interanalog distances was extraorally scanned, and the resulting data were saved as a reference file. To obtain experimental files, 6 distinct methods were used: conventional impression with splinted open-tray impression copings (IC), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting scan bodies or using any scan aids (SB), IOS with pattern resin-splinted scan bodies (PR), IOS with composite resin-splinted scan bodies (CR), IOS with 3D printed custom scan bodies (CSB), and IOS with 3D printed auxiliary apparatus (AA). The experimental files were aligned to the reference file in a metrology software program. The 3D comparison algorithm was run to quantify the root mean square estimate error (RMS). Scan bodies in the files were converted to hollow virtual cylinders, and the Cartesian coordinates of the lines passing through the centers of these cylinders were recorded to analyze angular (AD) and linear distortion (LD). LD was further analyzed along the x (∆X), y (∆Y), and z axes (∆Z). One-way ANOVAs with the Tukey HSD test were used for statistical analysis (α=.05).

RESULTS

AD at all sites, LD at all sites, and the RMS error showed significant differences (P<.05). The IC group showed the lowest AD values across all sites, followed by the AA, CSB, PR, CR, and SB groups. The SB group had the greatest LD values at all sites, while the IC group indicated the lowest LD values at all sites except the left anterior site. In terms of 3D distortions, the SB group had the largest RMS value, whereas the IC group showed the lowest RMS value. ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values also showed significant differences at all sites (P<.001) except for the ∆Z values at the right anterior site (P=.194). The highest mean ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values were recorded in the SB group except for the ∆Z measurement of the left posterior site.

CONCLUSIONS

The IC group outperformed the other groups. The AA group exhibited distortion comparable with that of the IC group. Splinting scan bodies or using scan aids enhanced the trueness.

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.

Does the available interocclusal space influence the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured with an intraoral scanner?

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of a maxillomandibular relationship acquired by intraoral scanners (IOSs) has been previously analyzed; however, the impact of the interocclusal space on the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship remains unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate the influence of the interocclusal space (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 degrees of incisal opening in the articulator) on the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured with an IOS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Markers were attached to the first molars and canines of maxillary and mandibular diagnostic casts, which were mounted on a semi-adjustable articulator, and digital scans were acquired (TRIOS 4). Both digital scans were duplicated 100 times and distributed into 5 groups depending on the incisal pin opening in the articulator (n=20): 0 (Group 0), 1 (Group 1), 2 (Group 2), 3 (Group 3), and 4 degrees (Group 4). In Group 0 (control), the casts were maintained in maximum intercuspation (MIP) with the incisal pin of the articulator set at 0 degrees. Then, a bilateral virtual occlusal record was acquired and automatically processed by using the IOS software program. A laboratory scanner (Medit T500) was used to digitize the mounted casts. The same procedures were completed in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 but with the incisal pin set at 1, 2, 3, and 4 degrees respectively. The interlandmark distances were used to calculate the discrepancies between the control and groups tested. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise comparison Tukey HSD tests were used to inspect the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

The interocclusal space available when capturing the occlusal records affected the trueness of the maxillomandibular virtual relationship measured (P<.001). Group 0 (135 μm) obtained the highest distortion, while Group 3 (73 μm) and Group 4 (71 μm) showed the lowest distortion. Additionally, the interocclusal space available (P<.001) impacted the precision of the maxillomandibular virtual relationship measured. Group 0 (111 μm) obtained the highest distortion, while Group 4 (precision mean value of 59 μm) had the lowest distortion among the groups tested.

CONCLUSIONS

The interocclusal space available when acquiring virtual bilateral occlusal records using the IOS tested impacted the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship. The smallest available interocclusal space tested (maximum intercuspation) showed the worst trueness and precision mean values, while the group with the largest interocclusal space available had the highest trueness and precision mean values among the groups studied.

Creating a 3D diagnostic cast with realistic tooth shade and translucency using an open source nondental CAD software program: A dental technique

This article describes a digital technique for acquiring a 3-dimensional (3D) diagnostic cast with authentic tooth shade and translucency using an open source nondental computer-aided design (CAD) software program detailing the operational methods and parameters. The resultant 3D diagnostic cast can be transmitted to a dental laboratory for the fabrication of definitive prostheses.

Esthetic integration area concept in digitally guided veneer rehabilitation: A dental technique

Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technologies have been integrated into the dental digital workflow. However, pretreatment virtual veneer preparations and the digital design and manufacturing of guided preparation and cementation templates has not yet been incorporated into the clinical routine. This article presents a novel protocol for digitally guided veneer rehabilitation by following the esthetic integration area concept, facilitating precise control over tooth structure removal and obviating the need for interim restorations.

Effect of Different Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Bite Registration in Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Arches

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to use in vitro models to examine the bite registration accuracy of four different intraoral scanners (IOS) for edentulous maxillary and mandibular arches. The objective was to assess the trueness and precision of the IOS and determine if there were significant differences between them.

METHODS

An Asiga Max UV 3D printer was used to print maxillary and mandibular edentulous models based on the shape of Frasaco models (artificial dental arch models). Four dental implants were placed symmetrically in both models using Straumann BLT RC implants. Digital impressions were taken with Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4, and Medit i500 intraoral scanners (n = 10 for each IOS). Digital bite registrations were made, and scanning data was exported in STL format. The accuracy of the interarch distance (the distance between the metrological spheres attached to the mandibular and maxillary models) was estimated for each IOS.

RESULTS

The results showed significant differences in trueness and precision between different IOS (p <.05), except Medit i500 and Trios 3 (p >.05). Primescan provided the most accurate results, followed by Medit i500, Trios 3, and Trios 4, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

within the limitations of this study, the IOS type affects the accuracy of interocclusal bite registration in in vitro design. Only Primescan achieved clinically acceptable accuracy for the interocclusal recording of edentulous arches.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The comparison of the accuracy of bite registration between different intraoral scanners will help increase the efficiency of the clinical application of digitalized interarch registration.

Effect of substrate material and abutment geometry on the accuracy of intraoral scanning: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital scanning is gradually replacing conventional impression making, but consensus on how tooth preparation influences the accuracy of intraoral scanning is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of substrate material and abutment geometry on the accuracy of digital casts obtained by intraoral scanning.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The height and total occlusal convergence (TOC) angle were measured in 5 different groups that contained 5 specimens of different materials: natural tooth, cobalt chromium alloy, titanium, zirconium dioxide ceramic, and resin. The specimens were scanned with an industrial scanner to obtain reference data. Each specimen was placed in a maxillary standard dentition model that was assembled in a head simulator. Each dentition model was scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner (IOS) under operatory lighting conditions to acquire intraoral scanning files for each specimen. All data were imported into a metrology software program and processed. A total of 10 trueness deviations, the mean superimposition results between IOS scanning data and reference data, and precision deviations, the mean superimposition results between IOS scanning data in pairs, were recorded. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey multiple comparison test were used to analyze the accuracy of intraoral scanning in relation to the height or TOC angle of the abutment (α=.05). The total means of each substrate material were compared with the Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn test for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

The accuracy of scanning images was related to material and abutment geometry (P<.05). Bias was larger as abutment height increased with most substrates. Larger TOC angles increased the accuracy of the digital scans. The trueness deviation of translucent materials and the precision deviation of reflective materials were generally larger.

CONCLUSIONS

Substrate material and abutment geometry influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning. The accuracy of IOS generally tended to improve with decreasing height and increasing TOC angle and was affected by different substrates.

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.

Accuracy of Complete-Arch Scans Obtained by Intraoral Scanner and Smartphone Three-Dimensional Scanning Applications With Different Smartphone Position Setups: An In Vitro Study

INTRODUCTION

The high cost of intraoral scanners (IOS) for complete-arch scans makes them less accessible for many dental practitioners. As a viable alternative, smartphone scanner applications (SMP) provide comparable scanning capabilities at a significantly low cost. However, there is limited data on the accuracy of SMP, especially when used in various smartphone positions. This study aimed to compare the three-dimensional (3D) and linear accuracy of complete-arch scans acquired by an IOS and SMP (KIRI Engine, KIRI Innovations, Guangdong, China) at three shooting angles (0°, 45°, and 90° for SMP_3A) and two shooting angles (30° and 60° for SMP_2A).

METHODS

A stone dental cast was scanned with a laboratory scanner as a reference, with 11 scans performed by an IOS, SMP_2A, and SMP_3A. In 3D analysis, trueness and precision were evaluated through superimposition with the reference scan and within each group, respectively, using the best-fit algorithm of Geomagic Wrap software (3D Systems, Inc., Rock Hill, SC). Trueness in linear discrepancy was assessed by comparing the occlusal-cervical and mesiodistal dimensions of reference teeth (canine, premolar, and molar), intercanine width, and intermolar width on the digital casts to measurements of the stone cast, while precision was measured using the coefficient of variance. Differences between groups were analyzed using the Friedman test, followed by the Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test with a significance level set at 0.05.

RESULTS

IOS exhibited significantly lower trueness than SMP_2A (p = 0.003) with significantly greater width discrepancies on canines (p = 0.001) and molars (p < 0.001). Discrepancy patterns differed among the three scanning methods. The IOS showed greater discrepancies on the occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth. While SMP_3A demonstrated higher variation on the palatal surfaces and interproximal areas of posterior teeth. For precision, SMP_3A (p = 0.028) and SMP_2A (p = 0.003) showed a significantly lower precision in 3D analysis, but a comparable reproducibility in linear measurement to IOS.

CONCLUSION

TRIOS IOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) exhibited lower trueness in 3D and linear accuracy analyses for complete-arch scans. The positions of the smartphone significantly enhanced trueness at the undercut region. SMP_2A and SMP_3A can be a potential alternative for precise linear measurement in complete-arch scans with selective use.

Accuracy of the 3-dimensional virtual patient representation obtained by using 4 different techniques: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Facial and intraoral scans can be aligned with or without the assistance of extraoral scan body systems to obtain a 3-dimensional (3D) virtual patient representation. However, the accuracy of the virtual patient remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the accuracy of the virtual patient representation obtained by superimposing facial and intraoral digital scans with 4 different techniques (with and without the usage of extraoral scan bodies) and to measure the operator influence on the accuracy of the virtual patient integration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three markers were placed in the jaw simulation of a mannequin on the right (r), center (c), and left (l) surfaces. Five additional markers were attached to the mesiobuccal cusp of the right first molar (RM), cusp of the right canine (RC), buccal surface of the right central incisor (CI), cusp of the left canine (LC), and mesiobuccal cusp of the left first molar (LM). A reference scan (control scan) of the mannequin was obtained by using an industrial scanner (Gom ATOS Q 3D 12 M). Four different groups were created depending on the technique used: 3D scan body (3D scan body) (3D-SB group), AFT (AFT Dental System) (AFT group), Sat 3D (Sat 3D) (Sat3D group), and without using a scan body system (No-SB group). Additionally, a digital scan of the typodont was obtained with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4). The virtual patient integration was performed 10 times per group by 2 independent operators by using a software program (DentalCAD, Galway). Each operator obtained a total of 9 interlandmark measurements on the reference scan and on each virtual patient integration of each group with the measurement tool of the computer-aided design program. The data were analyzed by using 4-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

The group (P<.001), specimen (P<.001), and operator (P<.001) significantly influenced the trueness discrepancies obtained. Additionally, the 3D-SB group had the best trueness (244 μm), and the No-SB group had the worst trueness (346 μm). Operator 1 (279 μm) obtained significantly better trueness than operator 2 (295 μm). Group (P<.001), specimen (P<.001), and operator (P<.001) significantly influenced precision discrepancies, with the AFT (149 μm) and 3D-SB (154 μm) groups having the best precision and the No-SB group (269 μm) the worst precision. Operator 1 (176 μm) obtained significantly better precision than operator 2 (197 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

The techniques tested influenced the accuracy of the 3D virtual patient representation. The 3D-SB group had the best trueness, and the AFT and 3D-SB groups had the best precision, while the No-SB group showed the lowest trueness and precision values. Operator handling had a significant effect on the trueness and precision values of the virtual patient integrations tested.

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.

Utilization of 3D evaluation for assessing selective caries removal practice in pre-clinical dental students: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Practicing and assessment of selective caries removal techniques in dental students remain challenges in many dental schools. The aim of this study was to utilize a 3D assessment technique, within a designated acceptable range of deviation, to evaluate the tendency of dental students in performing selective caries removal (SCR). The correlation between 3D assessment results and the conventional rubric rated by an instructor was also determined.

METHODS

Fifth-year dental students (n = 61) performed the SCR task on 3D-printed teeth containing simulated deep caries lesions in occlusal and proximal surfaces. One instructor assessed the results using a conventional analytic rubric. The excavated teeth were additionally evaluated using 3D analysis software with the designated acceptable range of deviations (± 0.5 mm) from the standard cavities. The average root mean square (RMS) value, representing the deviation between student-prepared cavities and the predefined standard cavities, was recorded. A tendency towards over-excavation was defined for RMS values > 0.5 mm, and towards under-excavation for RMS values < 0.5 mm.

RESULTS

The mean (min-max) of RMS was 0.27 (0.18-0.40) for occlusal and 0.29 (0.20-0.57)for proximal cavities. A tendency of dental students toward over-excavation was observed in both occlusal (74%) and proximal cavities (87%). There was a moderate negative correlation between the RMS values and the traditional rubric scores for both occlusal (R2 = 0.148, P = 0.002) and proximal cavities (R2 = 0.107, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D evaluation technique effectively revealed specific tendencies in dental students' caries removal skills. The integration of computerized assessments with traditional methods could potentially assist the instructors in delivering more objective and specific feedback to students. Further research is encouraged to investigate the impact of this assessment technique on improving student performance in selective caries removal skills.

Accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of various scanning patterns for the extraoral digitalization of complete dentures by using an intraoral scanner

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has been described as a method of digitizing complete dentures (CDs) extraorally; however, accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms remain unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of different scanning patterns for digitizing CDs extraorally with an IOS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The virtual design of a maxillary and mandibular CD was used to manufacture milled CDs. The maxillary (Mx group) and mandibular (Mb group) CDs were digitized extraorally by using an IOS (Medit i500). Three subgroups were created depending on the scanning pattern: using the protocol of the IOS selected (Medit Link) (ML subgroup), using the technique recommended by the implant manufacturer (DIOnavi) (DIO subgroup), and using a custom method (C subgroup). The design of the CDs (reference files) was used to compare the discrepancy between each virtual design and the corresponding scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. The scanning time and number of photograms were recorded. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze the trueness data. The Bartlett test was used to analyze the precision values (α=.05).

RESULTS

The group (P<.001) was a significant predictor of trueness. The Mx group (RMS mean of 0.452 mm) obtained higher trueness than the Mb group (RMS mean of 0.536 mm). The Mx-C and Mb-DIO subgroups obtained the highest trueness, and the Mx-ML and Mb-ML subgroups showed the lowest trueness. Significant differences were found in precision among groups (P<.01) and across subgroups (P<.01). The Mb group obtained the highest precision mean (0.586 mm) and was significantly different from the Mx group that obtained the lowest precision mean (0.611 mm). The C subgroup obtained the highest precision mean (0.339 mm) and was significantly different from the DIO subgroup that obtained the lowest precision mean (0.425 mm). The group (P<.01) and scanning pattern (P<.01) were significant predictors of the scanning time and number of photograms obtained. The Mb group showed lower scanning time and number of photograms than the Mx group.

CONCLUSIONS

The scanning patterns tested significantly influenced the trueness and precision values, scanning time, and number of photograms of the extraoral digitalization of maxillary and mandibular CDs by using the IOS tested.

Digital versus conventional prosthetic workflow for dental students providing implant-supported single crowns: A randomized crossover study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital scanning has become popular and has been reported to be more comfortable for patients and equally or more accurate than conventional impression techniques. However, clinical evidence to support the advantages of digital scanning is sparse.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized crossover study was to examine and compare the patient and provider perceptions of digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported single crowns (ISSCs) provided by dental students under supervision. Furthermore, the quality and patient-reported outcome of the definitive restorations were compared.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty participants in need of a single tooth replacement were enrolled. Three months after initial implant placement, recordings were made for implant-supported crowns. The participants were randomized into a conventional or a digital group but underwent both procedures. Only the designated impression or scan was sent to the dental laboratory technician to be processed. All participants and students were asked questions concerning which technique they preferred. Furthermore, the participants filled out an oral health impact profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire before and after treatment. The restorations' esthetic and technical quality was evaluated using the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS).

RESULTS

The participants preferred the digital technique (80%) over the conventional technique (2%), while 18% of the participants had no preference. The participants were bothered significantly more (P<.001), experienced significantly more shortness of breath (P<.001), and were significantly more anxious during the conventional impression than during the digital scan (P<.001). Most students also preferred the digital technique (65%) over the conventional technique (22%), and 13% had no preference. The students found that the conventional impression procedure was less time-consuming but more uncertain in comparison with the digital technique. The digital technique was perceived as significantly more impractical than the conventional technique (P<.05). The results from CIS showed no significant difference in the quality of the restorations. Following treatment, the OHIP-14 scores showed a significant drop, suggesting an increase in oral health-related quality of life (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The perceptions of the participants and students of the digital intraoral scanning were significantly better than those of the conventional technique. No significant differences in the quality of the restorations or OHIP scores were observed using the two recording techniques.

Comparative analysis of intaglio surface trueness of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses generated by a cast-free digital workflow and a three-dimensionally printed cast workflow

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Comparative analysis of the accuracy of the prostheses produced by a cast-free digital workflow and 3-dimensional (3D) printing cast workflow is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present investigation was to compare the intaglio surface trueness of implant-supported prostheses fabricated by using 3 different digital workflows: cast-free computer-aided design (CAD), 3D printed cast CAD (direct insert), and 3D printed cast CAD (indirect insert).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The laboratory data of 11 partially edentulous arches for prosthetic implant treatment were obtained. Three different workflows were tested to produce the cement-retained prostheses: cast-free CAD (Group CF), 3D printed cast CAD with direct insert (Group PD), and 3D printed cast CAD with indirect insert (Group PI). The intaglio surfaces of the prosthesis CAD data from Groups CF, PD, and PI were superimposed with 3D printed prosthesis scan data from Group CF to measure 3D surface deviation. Using the prosthesis CAD data from Group CF as a reference, those from Groups PD and PI were compared by superimposition analysis. The root mean square (RMS) estimates, positive average deviations, and negative average deviations were measured. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn test with Bonferroni correction, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analyses (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences were found among the 3 groups when the 3D printed prosthesis scan data were referenced (P<.05). Group CF showed the lowest RMS, positive average deviation, and negative deviation values, while Group PI showed the highest values. Significant differences in the RMS, positive average deviation, and negative average deviation values were found between Groups PD and PI when the prosthesis CAD data (Group CF) were referenced (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Among the 3 different workflows tested, the prostheses generated from the cast-free CAD flow showed significantly lower intaglio surface deviation than those generated from the 3D printed cast CAD flows, regardless of the insertion method of the implant replicas.

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.

Effect of tooth color on the accuracy of intraoral complete arch scanning under different light conditions using a zirconia restoration model

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Information regarding the effect of tooth color under different light conditions on the accuracy of intraoral complete arch scanning is limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of color and ambient light conditions on the accuracy of mandibular complete arch scanning with an intraoral scanner (IOS) using a zirconia restoration model with different shades.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Five mandible dentition models with zirconia restorations of different shades were fabricated by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM). The spectral reflectance and transmittance curves were collected with a spectrophotometer to determine color parameters (Rb, T, S+A, L*, a*, b*, C*, and h). Under 4 different lighting conditions: no light (ZL), natural light (NL), room light (RL), and chair light (CL), each model was scanned 10 times by using an IOS (TRIOS 3). Three-dimensional (3D) deviation analysis and a linear deviation analysis were performed for an accurate quantitative measurement of intraoral scanning. The multivariate test was used to determine significant differences in 3D deviation and linear deviation among groups. The multiple linear regression test was conducted to investigate the relevant independent factors of mean absolute 3D deviation.

RESULTS

The 3D deviation analysis showed that the mean absolute 3D deviation of 3M2 model scanning was the lowest (P<.001). Moreover, under CL and RL, the accuracy results from the 3M2 model scan were demonstrated as significantly better than the tested scans under other light conditions (P=.021). The result of the linear deviation analysis indicated that the variation in distance was only significant between the bilateral canines (P=.032). Ambient light conditions, C*, and h were factors influencing mean absolute 3D deviation (R2=0.593, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Color change influenced the accuracy of intraoral mandibular complete arch scanning under different light conditions. This effect may be attributable to the interaction between the ambient light condition and color parameters such as C* and h.

Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of digital implant scans can be affected by the implant angulation, implant depth, or interimplant distance. However, studies analyzing intraoral scanning accuracy with different implant angulations and different scan body heights are scarce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the influence of the implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two definitive implant casts with 6 implant analogs (Zimmer Biomet) were obtained: 1 cast had all the implant analogs parallel (GP group), and 1 cast had the implant analogs with divergence of up to 30 degrees (GD group). A coordinate measurement machine (Global Evo 09.15.08) was used to measure the positions of the implant analogs. Each group was divided into 3 subgroups depending on the clinical implant scan body height: 10, 6, and 3 mm. An implant scan body (Elos Accurate Scan Body Brånemark system) was positioned on each implant analog. A total of 10 scans of each subgroup were recorded by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). Each STL file obtained was imported into a reverse engineering software program (Geomagic), and linear and angular Euclidean measurements were obtained. The Euclidean calculations between the implant analog positions of the definitive implant casts were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies among the corresponding subgroups. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the lineal measurements were not normally distributed, so the Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparison Dunn tests were used (α=.05). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the angular measurements were normally distributed. Therefore, the 2-way ANOVA and pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used (α=.05).

RESULTS

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences in the linear Euclidean medians between the GP and GD groups with different clinical implant scan body heights (H(5)=23.18, P<.001). Significant differences in the linear Euclidean medians were computed between the GP-6 and GD-10 subgroups (P=.009), GD-3 and GD-6 subgroups (P=.029), and GD-3 and GD-10 subgroups (P=.001). Two-way ANOVA revealed that the implant angulation (F(1, 3.3437)=28.93, P<.001) and clinical implant scan body height (F(2, 0.4358)=3.77, P=.029) were significant predictors of discrepancies in the angular measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation and clinical scan body height influenced scanning accuracy. The lowest clinical implant scan body height tested had the lowest accuracy in both parallel and angled implants, but statistically significant differences were found only in the angled group.

Prediction of learning curves of wired and wireless intraoral scanners

This clinical study aimed to predict the learning curve of wireless and wired intraoral scanners (IOSs) and to compare the reduction patterns of working time. Overall, 14 participants were enrolled in the study. The intraoral scanning procedure was repeated four times, each using wireless and wired IOSs (i700; MEDIT). The work time from the first to the 600th iterations was predicted using the Wright model. Regarding statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney U-test was performed for comparison between wireless and wired IOSs and between groups with and without an IOS usage experience, and the Friedman test was performed to evaluate the time reduction (α = 0.05). There was a significant difference between wireless and wired IOSs in the first (P = 0.008) and the third (P = 0.035) iterations. Moreover, the time for 600 iterations was statistically significantly different between wireless and wired IOSs (P < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference after the sixth iteration (e.g., seventh iteration: P = 0.062). In wireless IOS, no significant difference was found between participants with and without an IOS usage experience after the 34th iteration (P = 0.053). The difference in the learning effect between wireless and wired IOSs can be overcome by initial learning; however, an IOS usage experience can affect the learning time of wireless IOSs.

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

PURPOSE

To report the means to maximize the predictability and accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans through the evaluation of operator and patient-related factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of published articles related to factors that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans was completed in four data sources:MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science. All studies related to variables that can influence the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) were considered. These variables included ambient lighting, scanning pattern, implant scan body (ISB) design, techniques for splinting ISBs, arch location, implant position, and inter-implant distance.

RESULTS

Among operator-related factors, ambient lighting conditions, scanning pattern, and ISB design (material, geometry, and retention design) can impact the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal ISB for maximizing IOS accuracy is unclear; however, polymer ISB can wear with multiple reuse and sterilization methods. Among patient-related factors, additional variables should be considered, namely arch (maxillary vs. mandibular arch), implant position in the arch, inter-implant distance, implant depth, and angulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambient lighting conditions should be established based on the IOS selected to optimize the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal scanning pattern may vary based on the IOS, clinical situation, and the number of implants. The optimal ISB design may vary depending on the IOS used. Metallic implant scan bodies are preferred over polymer ISB designs to minimize wear due to multiple use and sterilization distortion. Among patient-related factors, additional variables should be considered namely the arch scanned, implant position in the arch, inter-implant distance, implant depth, and angulation. The impact of these factors may vary depending on the IOS selected.

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.

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.

Comparison of the Time and Accuracy of Intraoral Scans Performed by Dentists, Nurses, Postgraduates, and Undergraduates

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the scanning time (ST) and accuracy of 10 repeated upper and lower dentition scans by four groups of operators with different professional backgrounds.

METHODS

There were a total of 32 participants, including dentists, nurses, postgraduates, and undergraduates (n=8). They received the same training about intraoral scanning and then performed 10 repeat scans on the plaster maxillary and mandibular dentition models in a manikin head, with the first five scans being the T1 phase and the last five scans being the T2 phase. Each ST was recorded. Trueness and precision were evaluated by root mean square (RMS) value gained from alignments of corresponding virtual models. For statistical analysis, the paired-sample t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation tests were employed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Limiting the comparison in scan phase and scan target the sequence of STs for the four groups was the same (p<0.05), by which undergraduates, postgraduates, nurses, and dentists were in descending order. Undergraduates gained the best precision, followed by postgraduates, dentists, and nurses, in both maxillary and mandibular scanning (p<0.05). Compared with corresponding items of the T1 phase, the trueness of the T2 phase was much higher (p<0.05), while the ST of the T2 phase was much shorter (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The operator's professional background affects the precision and scanning time but not the trueness. Most dental personnel have good access to the intraoral scanner. As the number of scans increased, the accuracy and scanning efficiency also improved.

Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Different variables that decrease the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) have been identified. Ambient temperature changes can occur in the dental environment, but the impact of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the impact of ambient temperature changes on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an IOS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complete arch maxillary dentate Type IV stone cast was obtained. Four 6-mm-diameter gauge balls were added to the maxillary cast to aid future evaluation measurements. The maxillary cast was digitized by using an industrial scanner (GOM Atos Q 3D 12M). The manufacturer's recommendations were followed in obtaining a reference scan. Then, the maxillary cast was digitized by using an IOS (TRIOS 4) according to the scanning protocol recommended by the manufacturer. Four groups were created depending on the ambient temperature change assessed: 24 °C or room temperature (24-D or control group), 19 °C or a 5-degree temperature drop (19-D group), 15 °C or a 9-degree temperature drop (15-D group), and 29 °C or a 5-degree temperature rise (29-D group). The Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests revealed that the data were not normally distributed (P<.05). For trueness, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis followed by the Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise comparison tests were used. Precision analysis was obtained by using the Levene test based on the comparison of the standard deviations of the 4 groups with 95% Bonferroni confidence intervals for standard deviations (α=.05).

RESULTS

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences in the trueness values among all 4 groups (P<.001). Furthermore, significant differences between the linear discrepancy medians between the control and 19-D groups (P<.001), control and 15-D groups (P=.002), control and 29-D groups (P<.001), 19-D and 29-D groups (P=.003), and 15-D and 29-D groups (P<.001) were found. The Levene test for the comparison of the variances among the 4 groups did not detect a significant difference (P>.999), indicating that precision wise the 4 groups were not significantly different from each other.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambient temperature changes had a detrimental effect on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOS tested. Ambient temperature changes significantly decreased the scanning accuracy of the IOS system tested. Increasing the ambient temperature has a greater influence on the intraoral scanning accuracy of the IOS selected when compared with decreasing the ambient temperature.

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.

Accuracy of optical interocclusal registration using an intraoral scanner

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the effect of occlusal force on appropriate optical interocclusal registration in clinical practice, considering periodontal ligament and jawbone deformation.

METHODS

Forty participants with natural, healthy dentition were enrolled (19 men and 21 women; mean age, 27.7 ± 2.0 years). A TRIOS3 intraoral scanner was used to scan the right lateral first premolar to the second molar areas of the upper and lower jaws. During scanning for interocclusal registration, participants were instructed to "bite normally," "bite lightly," and "bite strongly" to obtain data for the three occlusal patterns. The standard triangulated language (STL) data for each occlusion condition were superimposed using the appropriate software, following which the tooth displacement was calculated. The conventional method was also used to record the occlusal contact area for a silicone model using a dental contact analyzer.

RESULTS

Tooth displacement was significantly lower for the strong-bite condition than for the weak-bite condition (0.018 mm vs. 0.028 mm, P<0.05). As the occlusal force increased, the occlusal contact area also increased, and significant differences were observed among the different occlusal conditions (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Occlusal contact area changed depending on the bite force when using the silicone impression or optical intraoral scanning methods. Moreover, using optical impression methods in "strong bite force" may reduce the deviation and allow for stable interocclusal registration.

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

PURPOSE

To compare the trueness and precision of different impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses between extraoral and intraoral conditions at different locations.

METHODS

Six volunteers participated in this study. A resin block with two parallel analogs was fabricated as an implant site simulator (ISS). The ISS was bonded to a molded ethylene vinyl acetate sheet to create a reference model. For each participant, four reference models were prepared based on the locations of the ISSs: maxillary posterior/anterior region (MaxP/MaxA) and mandibular posterior/anterior region (ManP/ManA). Five impressions were taken extraorally using the open-tray (conventional implant impression technique, CIT) and intraoral scanning (digital implant impression technique, DIT) techniques. The reference models were positioned in the participants' mouths, and impressions were obtained intraorally using the CIT and DIT. The interanalog distance (d) and angulation (θ) were measured to calculate trueness (Δd, Δθ) and precision (dP, θP). Two-way ANOVA and t tests were performed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

For the DIT, under intraoral conditions, the Δd and Δθ in MaxP and Δθ in ManP were significantly higher than those under extraoral conditions. For the CIT, under intraoral conditions, the Δd and Δθ in ManA and ManP and Δθ in MaxP were significantly lower than those under extraoral conditions. No significant differences in the dP and θP of either DIT or CIT were observed between the two conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral conditions affected the trueness of DIT and CIT in different regions but had no influence on precision.

Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

 This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in terms of trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners (IOS) and the effect of different finishing line designs on the IOS's accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Three printed models of the maxillary arch with maxillary right first molar virtually prepared with chamfer, shoulder, and vertical preparation designs were used as master models in this study. Each model was scanned 30 times with each IOS: Medit i700, Planscan Emerald S, CEREC Primescan, TRIOS 3, CS3600, MEDIT i500, Heron 3Disc, and Cerec Omnicam. The trueness was measured by superimposition of the scanned dataset made with IOS and the scanned dataset made with a lab scanner (In Lab Medit T710) that was used as a reference and the deviation was measured and expressed as a color-coded map by the metrology program (Medit compare, version 2.3.5.892), while precision was measured by the superimposition of the scans of each IOS on each other.The data were analyzed statistically using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, one-way ANOVA test, and Bonferroni test at significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

 The tested IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision. Medit i700 and CEREC Primescan recorded the highest precision with no significant difference between them, while Medit i700 recorded the highest trueness as compared to other IOS. Each IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision with the three finishing line designs except CEREC Primescan and Heron 3 disc that showed no significant difference in trueness with the three finishing line designs and CS3600 that showed no significant difference in precision with the three finishing line designs.

CONCLUSION

 A significant difference in accuracy was found among the tested IOS and the type of finishing line design had a significant effect on IOS's accuracy.

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported prostheses are technique-sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer an alternative to conventional impression making.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete arch implant scans and to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks fabricated with SPG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Laboratory scanning of gypsum casts, SPG, and IOS were performed for all participants. The data regarding the abutment platform were superimposed to calculate the 3D deviation of SPG and IOS compared with that of laboratory scanning as an evaluation of accuracy. The effect of implant position and number on accuracy was analyzed. The more accurate technique between SPG and IOS was used to fabricate the titanium frameworks, as was laboratory scanning. The passive fit of the frameworks was assessed by clinical examination, the Sheffield test, and panoramic radiography.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants (21 arches, 120 implants) were included. The accuracy of SPG ranged from 2.70 μm to 92.80 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 17.00 (11.68, 22.50) μm, which was significantly more accurate than that of IOS, ranging from 21.30 μm to 815.60 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 48.95 (34.78, 75.88) μm. No significant correlation was found between position or number of implants and 3D deviation in the SPG group. A weak positive correlation was found between implant number and 3D deviation in the IOS group. SPG and laboratory scanning were used to fabricate titanium frameworks. The passive fit between the frameworks and abutment platforms was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

SPG, which was not affected by position or number of implants, was more accurate than IOS and comparable with laboratory scanning. The frameworks fabricated based on SPG and laboratory scanning were comparable in their passive fit. The SPG technique may be an alternative to laboratory scanning for complete arch implant scans.

Accuracy assessment (trueness and precision) of a confocal based intraoral scanner under twelve different ambient lighting conditions

OBJECTIVES

. The ambient lighting condition has been identified as an important factor that influences the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of 12 different ambient lighting conditions on the accuracy of a confocal based IOS (PrimeScan).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

. A typodont was digitized using a laboratory scanner (L2i) to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL_r) file. A restorative dentist recorded the scans using an IOS (PrimeScan) under 12 different ambient lighting conditions where the luminosity was measured using a light meter (LX1330B Light Meter). Twelve groups were created, namely 0-, 500-, 1000-, 2000-, 3000-, 4000-, 5000-, 6000-, 7000-, 8000-, 9000-, and 10 000-lux groups. Ten STL files were recorded per group. The STL_r file was used as a reference with which to compare the distortion of the 120 STL files obtained using a software program (Meshlab). The normality Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that the distributions were not normal. Therefore, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise multicomparison tests were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

. The group with the 1000-lux lighting condition obtained the smallest median ±interquartile range (IQR) with scanning distortion values of 69.5 ±97.4 µm, followed by the 8000-lux group with a median ±IQR of 166.5 ±318.1 µm. The 0-lux group presented the highest distortion values with a mean ±IQR of 355.5 ±488.0 µm (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

. Ambient lighting conditions influenced the accuracy of the IOS tested. The highest accuracy values were obtained with 1000 lux. The lowest scanning accuracy was obtained with 0 lux.

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.

Predictability of intraoral scanner error for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to analyze the behaviors of three intraoral scanners (IOSs): evaluating the interdistance and axial inclination discrepancies in full-arch scans, predictable errors were searched.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six edentulous sample models with variable numbers of dental implants were used; reference data were obtained with a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM). Each IOS (i.e., Primescan, CS3600, and Trios3) performed 10 scans per model (180 total scans). The origin of each scan body was used as a reference point to measure interdistance lengths and axial inclinations. Precision and trueness of interdistance measurements and axial inclinations were evaluated to address error predictability. Bland-Altman analysis, followed by linear regression analysis and Friedman's test (plus Dunn's post hoc correction), was performed to evaluate the precision and trueness.

RESULTS

Regarding interdistance, Primescan showed the best precision (mean ± SD: 0.047 ± 0.020 mm), while Trios3 underestimated the reference value more than the others (p < 0.001) and had the worst performance (mean ± SD: -0.079 ± 0.048 mm). Concerning the inclination angle, Primescan and Trios3 tended to overestimate angle values, while CS3600 underestimated them. Primescan had fewer inclination angle outliers, but it tended to add 0.4-0.6° to the measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

IOSs showed predictable errors: they tended to overestimate or underestimate linear measurements and axial inclinations of scan bodies, one added 0.4-0.6° to the angle inclination values. In particular, they showed heteroscedasticity, a behavior probably related to the software or the device itself.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

IOSs showed predictable errors that could affect clinical success. When performing a scan or choosing a scanner, clinicians should clearly know their behaviors.

Efficacy of CAD/CAM technology in dental procedures performed by students: A systematic scoping review of randomized clinical trials

To assess the efficacy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dental procedures performed by dental students.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed. MeSH terms and keywords were specified to assess randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in all idioms.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs that include 520 students were selected. Two RCTs studied implant placement, and the rest of the trials explored implant impressions, intraoral scans, canal obturation, head positioning errors in panoramic images, deep caries and pulp exposure, diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders, and a tooth for restorations. Considering efficacy, variable results were found. The RCTs that explored implant impressions, deep caries and pulp exposure, and diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders showed better results when CAD/CAM technology was performed by students. Two RCTs that investigated implant placement presented contradictory outcomes; one showed better results when CAD/CAM systems were used while the other described similar results to conventional methods. The remaining RCTs did not find differences with conventional procedures. Considering the time spent during the procedures, two studies showed no differences between groups, while another indicated that the time spent was less for digital impressions (p < 0.001). A continuous decrease in scanning time was also perceived for all groups as skills in intraoral scanning augmented (p = 0.0005). Students indicated an interest in utilizing the CAD/CAM systems and recognized that their abilities were enhanced.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the limitations of this review and the limited number of RCTs evaluated, students recognized that their skills improved using CAD/CAM systems; however, only in some specific procedures greater efficacy and less time spent were observed when this technology was used. Dental students also showed great interest in using these techniques.

Influence of Operator Experience on Scanning Time and Accuracy with Two Different Intraoral Scanners - A Prospective Clinical Trial

Objective

Operator experience and scanner type may influence the time taken and obtained accuracy of intraoral scanning. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of operator experience on the scanning time and correlate the accuracy of the scans taken with two different intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, 3Shape and i500, Medit).

Methods

In this trial, a total of 20 subjects who required intraoral scanning for orthodontic treatment were included. Intraoral scanning was done with two different scanners, TRIOS 3 and i500. One operator each with high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) levels of experience performed intra-oral scanning with two different intraoral scanners. A One-Way ANOVA test was performed to assess the intergroup difference in scanning time and Kendall's tau's correlation test to determine the correlation between the experience of the operator and accuracy among the three groups using the two scanners. Also Independent samples t-test were performed to assess the intragroup differences in scanning time with two different scanners.

Results

The scanning time was influenced by the type of intraoral scanner and operator experience (p<0.05). No significant correlation between operator experience and scanning accuracy in the three groups was noted (p>0.05). Statistically significant intragroup differences in scanning time between the two scanners were noted (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Less experienced operators took more time to scan a subject. Accuracy of scanning among three groups using two scanners was not influenced by the experience of the operator. Scanning with i500 IOS took more time than TRIOS.

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.

Scanning accuracy and scanning area discrepancies of intraoral digital scans acquired at varying scanning distances and angulations among 4 different intraoral scanners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however, the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances and angulations among IOSs remain uncertain.

PURPOSE

The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4, CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance. In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance, and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal-Wallis and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05).

RESULTS

IOS (P<.001), scanning distance (P<.001), and scanning angle (P<.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (P<.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (P<.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (P<.001). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (P<.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (P<.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (P>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance, and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.

Cost and effectiveness of 3-dimensionally printed model using three different printing layer parameters and two resins

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

When 3-dimensional printing casts, the operator can change the type of resin and the printing layer thickness, reducing the fabrication time. However, how these parameters affect the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts by using a stereolithography (SLA) 3-dimensional printer (Forms2) with 3 different layer thickness (25, 50, and 100 μm) and 2 different resins (Gray and Cast) and by comparing the time to obtain each cast.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One master cast was scanned, and a single file was printed several times. The printed casts were then scanned by using a laboratory scanner. The standard tessellation language (STL) files provided by the laboratory scanner were superimposed and compared by using a software program (Geomagic Control; 3D Systems). The 2-way ANOVA test was used for the trueness evaluation, followed by the Tukey test to identify differences among the groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in accuracy were found among the 3 different layers for either resin (P>.05). Printing time doubled as layer thickness decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that when printing casts, the fastest printing settings can be used without losing accuracy and that the laboratory digital workflow can be accelerated with selection of the resin and cast layer, as the type of resin and layer thickness did not influence the quality of the casts.

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.

The Potential of Digital Impression in Orthodontics

Background: Over the past 20 years, there have been many innovations in orthodontic diagnosis and therapy. Among the innovations, there is the taking of dental impressions (DIs). Dental impressions are the negative imprint of hard and soft tissues of one or both arches, and they allow a plaster model to be formed, i.e., a positive reproduction. Traditional dental impressions can be made of different materials, such as alginate, while digital impression is captured by an intra-oral scanner. Digital impression, despite the evident advantages, has not yet replaced the conventional impression. The aim of this study is to evaluate which dental impressions are the most used by dentists. For this purpose, we considered 120 questionnaires sent electronically to patients of different dental private practices from different countries, where the dentists can use both techniques. The results highlighted that the kind of impression adopted is very much influenced by the type of therapy and orthodontic devices used in the treatment. We can conclude that, despite the advent of digital technology, conventional impressions are still used for fixed devices, while digital impressions are more adopted for orthodontic customized devices and therapies with clear aligners, that are very widespread among adult patients.

Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P < .05).

RESULTS

The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) (P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) (P < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P < .005).

CONCLUSION

Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.

Effect of full arch two scanning techniques on the accuracy of overdenture conventional and CAD/CAM Co-Cr bars

This work evaluates the internal and marginal adaptation of implant-assisted overdenture cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) bars manufactured using conventional as well as CAD/CAM subtractive and selective laser melting (SLM) utilizing two scanning techniques. Methods: An edentulous study model containing four dental implants placed at teeth sites 36, 33, 43, and 46 was used. The study cast was scanned and compared to the virtual casts developed from two scanning techniques, straight and zigzag motion, using the in silico superimposition process. Then, conventional techniques were used to produce full-arch bars that were compared to the bars fabricated using the two scanning techniques and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques. Results: The conventional impression and casting techniques had the smallest marginal gap among the groups (P-value < 0.05). The CAD/CAM subtractive milling techniques in groups II and III had significantly smaller marginal gaps than SLM technique used in groups IV and V (P-value < 0.05). The analysis of the internal gap within each group showed statistically significant differences between different implant sites in all groups (P-value < 0.001), except when using the conventional impression and casting techniques in group I (P-value = 0.20). Conclusion: The conventional impression and fabrication techniques were better than the digital impression and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques for the fabrication of full-arch bars. However, both straight and zigzag scanning techniques and the CAD/CAM subtractive technique had marginal and internal gaps that were within clinically accepted ranges, and the SLM was found to be unsuitable for long-span framework fabrication with either scanning technique used.

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.

Influence of the implant scan body geometry bevel feature position, implant angulation, and position on intraoral scanning accuracy: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of the scan body geometry bevel position and implant angulation and position of complete-arch implant digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two definitive casts with 4 implant analogs placed parallel (P group) or angulated up to 30 degrees (NP group) were fabricated. Five subgroups were created based on the scan body geometry bevel position: facial, mesial, distal, lingual, or random (F, M, D, L, and R subgroup). Casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner (reference) (7Series Desktop Scanner) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). The implant position discrepancies between the reference and experimental scans were calculated. Data was analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

The scan body geometry bevel position (P<.001) and the inter-implant distance (P<.001) were shown as significant predictors of the linear discrepancies obtained. The L subgroup had a significantly lower discrepancy compared with the other subgroups. Implant angulation (P<.001), the scan body geometry bevel position (P<.001), and the inter-implant distance (P<.001) were all significant predictors on the angular discrepancies obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

The scan body geometry bevel feature position and implant angulation and position influenced the accuracy of the IOS tested. The lingual orientation obtained significantly better accuracy values compared with the other positions. The parallel implant analog position obtained better accuracy than the angulated positions. Lastly, the implant positioned in the dental arch where the intraoral digital scan was started obtained significantly higher distortion than the contralateral implant.

Additively Manufactured Scan Bodies for Virtual Patient Integration: Different Designs, Manufacturing Procedures, and Clinical Protocols

Additively manufactured intraoral scan bodies can be used to guide the alignment of a patient's digital file information, including facial and intraoral digital scans both with and without a cone beam computed tomography scan, and to obtain a 3D virtual patient's representation. The present manuscript reviews the different intraoral scan body designs, procedures involved in additive manufacturing, clinical protocols for fabricating an additively manufactured scan body, performing a patient's digital data collection, and completing the alignment techniques.

Trueness of full-arch IO scans estimated based on 3D translational and rotational deviations of single teeth-an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To three-dimensionally evaluate deviations of full-arch intraoral (IO) scans from reference desktop scans in terms of translations and rotations of individual teeth and different types of (mal)occlusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three resin model pairs reflecting different tooth (mal)positions were mounted in the phantom head of a dental simulation unit and scanned by three dentists and three non-graduate investigators using a confocal laser IO scanner (Trios 3®). The tooth-crown surfaces of the IO scans and reference scans were superimposed by means of best-fit alignment. A novel method comprising the measurement of individual tooth positions was used to determine the deviations of each tooth in the six degrees of freedom, i.e., in terms of 3D translation and rotation. Deviations between IO and reference scans, among tooth-(mal)position models, and between dentists and non-graduate investigators were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

The overall translational deviations of individual teeth on the IO scans were 76, 32, and 58 µm in the lingual, mesial, and intrusive directions, respectively, resulting in a total displacement of 114 µm. Corresponding rotational deviations were 0.58° buccal tipping, 0.04° mesial tipping, and 0.14° distorotation leading to a combined rotation of 0.78°. These deviations were the smallest for the dental arches with anterior crowding, followed by those with spacing and those with good alignment (p < 0.05). Results were independent of the operator's level of education.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to reference desktop scans, individual teeth on full-arch IO scans showed high trueness with total translational and rotational deviations < 115 µm and < 0.80°, respectively.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Available confocal laser IO scanners appear sufficiently accurate for diagnostic and therapeutic orthodontic applications. Results indicate that full-arch IO scanning can be delegated to non-graduate dental staff members.

Accuracy and repeatability of different intraoral instruments on shade determination compared to visual shade selection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of intraoral instruments used for shade determination compared to visual shade selection (VSS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 20 subjects and 10 observers, balanced by gender, participated in the study. Observers performed VSS of the upper right central incisor from each subject. Instrumental shade determination of the same teeth was performed using a spectrophotometer (Easyshade V) and intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3 and Trios 4). Vita Classical shade nomenclature was used to record the shade designation for all instruments and VSS. The accuracy of the instruments was determined by comparing the instrument readings with the most frequent visual shade selected. The percentage of accuracy was obtained by comparing the number of agreements with the number of comparisons. The percentage of repeatability was obtained by comparing the number of repeated shades with the number of shade measurements in each group. Accuracy was compared using Cochran Q test followed by pairwise comparisons using multiple McNemar's tests with Bonferroni correction. Repeatability of the instruments was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

Omnicam showed a significant lower accuracy than the other instruments (p < 0.05). No statistical difference on repeatability was found among the different instruments (p > 0.05). It was not found any statistical differences for VSS accuracy among the observers (p = 0.437) and between genders (p = 0.867).

CONCLUSION

Instrumental repeatability (≥75%) and similar accuracy between the best performed instruments (69%-77.5%) and the observers performance (65%-90%) supports the use of high-performance instruments for dental shade determination.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Most instruments (Easyshade V, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 4) showed similar accuracy performance to observers in the VSS.

Intraoral Scanners in Orthodontics: A Critical Review

Background: The use of digital technology has exponentially increased over recent years. Intraoral scanners, especially, have gained traction within orthodontics. The objective of the present review is to investigate the available evidence to create an up-to-date presentation of various clinical aspects of intraoral scanners in orthodontics. Methods: Search without restrictions in seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, Proquest) since inception, and hand searching until October 2020, were conducted. Results: The majority of studies were either cross-over or parallel group studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scanners, in comparison to conventional methods, were investigated in several studies, with controversial results. The duration of the procedure did not report any clear outcome in favor of any method. Patients seem to prefer intraoral scanning, even though numerous studies point out the importance of operators’ experience and skills. Conclusions: Despite the innovations that intraoral scanners have brought in orthodontic clinical practice, there are still some challenges and limitations in their use. The majority of existing limitations may be overcome with experience and good clinical skills. More high-quality studies need to be conducted so that clinicians can have a clear image of this new technology.