Evaluation of the accuracy of 2 digital intraoral scanners: A 3D analysis study

The role of intraoral scanning in the fully digital workflow for post and core restorations: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to map the literature on the utilization of intraoral scanners (IOS) in fabricating post and core restorations.

DATA

The study protocol is available at https://osf.io/ja9xh/. This scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, and reporting was based on the checklist proposed by PRISMA-ScR.

SOURCES

Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and grey literature up to August 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 455 studies were identified. After screening, 16 studies were deemed suitable for scoping review. Of these, 13 were in vitro studies, two were case reports, and one was a clinical study. Different IOS systems for scanning post spaces were evaluated, with Trios being most prevalent, followed by Prismescan. While most studies did not use any intraoral scanning devices, five studies reported the use of scan posts. Results regarding retention favored fully digital workflows. However, results about the adaptation and accuracy varied between included studies, highlighting the importance of standardized approaches. Future clinical studies should encompass variations in IOS systems, post space depths, scanner depth of field, light conditions, scan post utilization, operator experience, scanning time and strategy, and direct comparison with conventional techniques.

CONCLUSION

IOS is increasingly important in capturing digital impressions for post spaces and provides valuable insights for clinicians and researchers. Although included studies, primarily in vitro, demonstrated promising results for the utilization of IOS systems in fully digital workflows for post and core restorations, further well-conducted studies, particularly clinical trials, are recommended due to data heterogeneity and limitations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This mapping highlights the potential of modern IOS in fully digital workflows for post and core restorations. Despite promising results, challenges related to different variables associated with IOS require careful consideration. Standardization and additional clinical validation are essential for optimize IOS benefits in post and core restorations.

In vitro evaluation of the impact of intraoral scanner, scanning aids, and the scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches

PURPOSE

To assess the accuracy of complete maxillary and mandibular edentulous arch scans obtained using two different intraoral scanners (IOSs), with and without scanning aids, and to compare these results to those obtained using conventional impression methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two IOSs were used (TRIOS 4 [TRI] and Emerald S [EMR]) to scan maxillary and mandibular typodonts. The typodonts were scanned without scanning aids [TRI_WSA and EMR_WSA groups] (n = 10). The typodonts were then scanned under four scanning aid conditions (n = 10): composite markers [TRI_MRK and EMR_MRK groups], scanning spray [TRI_SPR and EMR_SPR groups], pressure indicating paste [TRI_PIP and EMR_PIP groups], and liquid-type scanning aid [TRI_LQD and EMR_LQD groups]. Conventional impressions of both arches were also made using irreversible hydrocolloids in stock trays [IHC] and using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material in custom trays (n = 10) which were digitized using a laboratory scanner. Using a metrology software program, all scans were compared to a reference scan in order to assess trueness and to each other to assess precision. Trueness and precision were expressed as the root mean square (RMS) of the absolute deviation values and the statistical analysis was modeled on a logarithmic scale using fixed-effects models to meet model assumptions (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The main effect of arch (p = 0.004), scanner (p < 0.001), scanning aid (p = 0.041), and the interaction between scanner and scanning aid (p = 0.027) had a significant effect on mean RMS values of trueness. The arch (p = 0.015) and scanner (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the mean RMS values of precision. The maxillary arch had better accuracy compared to the mandible. The TRIOS 4 scanner had better accuracy than both the Emerald S scanner and conventional impressions. The Emerald S had better precision than conventional impressions. The scanning spray and liquid-type scanning aids produced the best trueness with the TRIOS 4 scanner, while the liquid-type scanning aid and composite markers produced the best trueness for the Emerald S scanner.

CONCLUSION

The scanned arch and the type of scanner had a significant effect on the accuracy of digital scans of completely edentulous arches. The scanning aid had a significant effect on the trueness of digital scans of completely edentulous arches which varied depending on the scanner used.

Influence of Repeated Cut-off and Rescanning on the Trueness of the Intraoral Digital Scans

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

A tooth model (#16) with a standard class II cavity was prepared, and the complete-arch was scanned using a laboratory scanner (D2000, 3Shape A/S) to obtain a reference scan. Then the typodont was scanned with three IOSs (3Shape TRIOS 3, CEREC Omnicam, and Medit i500) under two rescanning strategies (full-cut and partial-cut), with varying numbers of repeated cut-off and rescanning procedures (0, 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10). The trueness discrepancy between the reference and experimental digital scan was estimated using root mean square (RMS) calculations. Three regions of interest were selected to represent the rescanning, identification, and non-rescan area. And the discrepancies were analyzed using a linear mixed model (α=.05).

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Digital Models Formulated From Direct Intra-oral Scanning of Dental Arches in Comparison With Extra-oral Scanning of Poured Dental Models in Terms of Dimensional Accuracy and Reliability

BACKGROUND

The study's objective was to assess the dimensional accuracy and reliability of dental digital models prepared by direct intraoral scanning and indirect scanning of the plaster models compared to the plaster models as the gold standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 20 patients. Nine had a class I malocclusion, seven had a class II malocclusion, and four had a class III malocclusion. Intraoral scanning was done for the upper and lower arches of all the patients enrolled in this study using an intraoral scanner (i700; Medit, Seoul, Korea). The next step was preparing the plaster model for the control group. Addition-silicone impressions were taken for each patient's arches. The impressions were poured according to American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) standards. Finally, the digital models of the indirect scanning group were prepared using a 3D desktop scanner (T710; Medit). In total, 26 measurements were made on the plaster and digital models. Paired t-tests were used to test for significant differences between the studied groups. The reliability of the studied techniques was tested using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Because of the multiple comparisons, the ɑ level was adjusted and set at 0.002.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the intraoral scanning group (20 patients) and the plaster models group (20 patients; P>0.002). The ICCs ranged from 0.814 to 0.993, indicating excellent agreement between the direct digital and traditional plaster models. There were no significant differences between the digital and original plaster models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged from 0.834 to 0.995, indicating excellent agreement between the indirect digital and original plaster models. No significant differences were detected between the direct and indirect digital models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged between 0.813 and 0.999, indicating excellent agreement between direct and indirect digital models.

CONCLUSION

Both direct and indirect scanning techniques are accurate and reliable for digital model preparation and can be considered an alternative to traditional plaster models used in clinical orthodontics diagnostic applications. The intraoral scanning technique can be considered a valid alternative for indirect scanning of the plaster models to prepare digital working models during the digital design and fabrication of orthodontic appliances such as clear aligners.

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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete arch digital scan, part 2: A comparison of scan strategies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Various strategies for intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be used to scan the oral cavity. However, research on the scan range that can be clinically is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the 3-dimensional (3D) distortion of complete arch scans as part of the scan strategy and analyze the clinically recommended scan range.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model was obtained with an industrial scanner. A CAD test model was obtained by using 6 IOSs (TRIOS2, TRIOS3, CS3500, CS3600, i500, and Primescan) to apply 2 scan strategies and 2 dental laboratory scanners (DOF and E1) (N=15). All the teeth were segmented in the reference model by using 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X). The 3D analysis was performed by aligning the test model to the reference model and evaluating the root mean square values of all segmented teeth. The Mann-Whitney U-test was performed for a statistical comparison of the 2 scan strategies (α=.05), the Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05) was used to compare the scanners, and the Mann-Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction method were used as post hoc tests (α=.0017).

RESULTS

The 8 scanners obtained significant differences in the root mean square values of all teeth (P<.001). The root mean square value of IOSs increased from the left maxillary second molar to the right maxillary second molar. The difference in the 2 scan strategies showed different patterns depending on the IOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Scan strategy 2 improved the accuracy of the IOSs. TRIOS2 and CS3500 are for single crowns; TRIOS3, CS3600, and i500 are for short-span prostheses; and Primescan is for long-span prostheses.

Effect of posterior span length on the trueness and precision of 3 intraoral digital scanners: A comparative 3-dimensional in vitro study

Purpose

This in vitro study measured and compared 3 intraoral scanners' accuracy (trueness and precision) with different span lengths.

Materials and Methods

Three master casts were prepared to simulate 3 different span lengths (fixed partial dentures with 3, 4, and 5 units). Each master cast was scanned once with an E3 lab scanner and 10 times with each of the 3 intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Planmeca Emerald, and Primescan AC). Data were stored as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The differences between measurements were compared 3-dimensionally using metrology software. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis by the Tukey honest significant difference test for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.

Results

A statistically significant difference was found between the 3 intraoral scanners in trueness and precision (P<0.05). Primescan AC showed the lowest trueness and precision values (36.8 µm and 42.0 µm; (39.4 µm and 51.2 µm; and 54.9 µm and 52.7 µm) followed by Trios 3 (38.9 µm and 53.5 µm; 49.9 µm and 59.1 µm; and 58.1 µm and 64.5 µm) and Planmeca Emerald (60.4 µm and 63.6 µm; 61.3 µm and 69.0 µm; and 70.8 µm and 74.3 µm) for the 3-unit, 4-unit, and 5-unit fixed partial dentures, respectively.

Conclusion

Primescan AC had the best trueness and precision, followed by Trios 3 and Planmeca Emerald. Increasing span length reduced the trueness and precession of the 3 scanners; however, their values were within the accepted successful ranges.

The effect of scanned area on the accuracy and time of anterior single implant scans: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of scanned area on the accuracy and scan time of intraoral scans of an anterior implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three operators experienced in intraoral scanning (at least 2-year experience) performed partial and complete-arch scans (n = 10) of a dentate resin model with an implant at left central incisor site by using an intraoral scanner (Trios3; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Each partial- or complete-arch scan was superimposed to a reference scan from a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600; Amann Girrbach AG). Mean distance (selected 7 points) and angular (mesiodistal and buccolingual) scanbody deviations in test scans (trueness) and their variance (precision) were calculated. Linear-regressions (trueness), two-sided F-tests with a Bonferroni correction (precision), and multiple linear regressions (scan time), with the operator as a covariate were applied (alpha = .05).

RESULTS

Interactions were found between the scanned area and the operator for their effect on trueness of all points and angles, except for point 6 at implant-abutment connection in mesiodistal plane (p < .05). No significant difference was found between the precision of partial and complete-arch scans for all operators (p > .05). Partial-arch scan times were significantly shorter, overall, and for each operator (p < .001). No significant effect of scan time was found on the trueness of partial- and complete-arch scans (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Partial and complete-arch scans of anterior single implants with an intraoral scanner resulted in similar accuracies, and were not influenced by the operator or the scan time. Scan times of partial-arch scans were significantly shorter.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Partial-arch scans can be used for the fabrication of monolithic anterior single implant crowns because the scans can be completed in shorter times without compromising the accuracy.