Effect of Different Preparation Depths for an Inlay-Retained Fixed Partial Denture on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Beyond the surface: A comparative study of intraoral scanners in subgingival configuration scanning

OBJECTIVES

This study conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of three intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan, TRIOS, CEREC Omnicam) and a lab scanner (inEosX5) assessing their precision in simulating subgingival tooth preparations.

METHODS

Utilizing a dental simulation mannequin with a 3D-printed resin structure, 100 structures with depths ranging from 0.5 to 4.0 mm were created within a square mimicking a rectangular tank surface. Four scanner groups (A-D) and five subgroups were established. Two digitization methods, a customized parallelometer and an intraoral simulation, were applied, ensuring a standardized scanning sequence. Trueness was evaluated by comparing CAD-calculated surface areas with actual dimensions, and qualitative trueness analysis was conducted using MeshLab. Surface areas were computed using the formula SA = 2lw + 2lh + 2wh. Statistical analyses, including Pearson's correlation coefficient, Kolmogorov-Smirnoff and Levene's tests, three-way ANOVA, and paired sample t-tests, elucidated relationships and differences (a=0.05).

RESULTS

A robust correlation (r = 0.850, p < 0.001) between intraoral scanner choice and scanned area depth was found. Inverse correlations were noted for experimental methods. Three-way ANOVA demonstrated significant scanner-depth interaction (F(12,760) = 760.801, p < 0.001).

SIGNIFICANCE

Emphasizing high-resolution sensors and advanced technologies, the study underscores the optimal choice for subgingival digitization, acknowledging variations among scanners.

Effect of different span lengths with different total occlusal convergences on the accuracy of intraoral scanners

PURPOSE

The aim was to assess the effect of span lengths and total occlusal convergence (TOC) on the accuracy of intraoral scanners .

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two typodont acrylic teeth models were prepared to receive fixed dental prostheses with three different span lengths. Span 1: between maxillary canines; span 2: between maxillary second premolars; and span 3: between maxillary second molars. In the first model, prepared teeth had a TOC of 12°, whereas, in the second model, teeth had a TOC of 20°. Each model was scanned 10 times using 4 different intraoral scanners (Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 4, and Medit i500). The STL files from the scans were compared to the reference models (trueness) and within each test group (precision) using a 3D comparison software. Data were then statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Regarding trueness, no significant differences were found among Primescan (32.58 ± 13.08), Trios 4 (32.33 ± 12.19), and Medit i500 (32.26 ± 9.57). However, all showed significantly better trueness than Omnicam (35.70 ± 8.35) (p < 0.001). The highest values were found in scans between the second molars (47.42 ± 3.94), followed by scans between second premolars (28.42 ± 3.78), and the highest trueness was found in scans between the canines (23.80 ± 3.85). For TOC, 12° had a significantly higher value than 20° (p < 0.001). Regarding precision, the highest values were found with Omnicam (29.84 ± 3.89), followed by Medit i500 (28.04 ± 2.94), then Trios 4 (25.64 ± 3.11), and Primescan (24.69 ± 5.25). The highest values and least precision were found in scans between the second molars (28.97 ± 5.27) and scans between second premolars (27.59 ± 3.97), whereas the highest precision was found in scans between the canines (24.60 ± 2.04). For TOC, 12° had significantly higher values than 20° (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral scans are directly affected by scanner type, TOC, and scan spans. All tested scanners showed clinically acceptable results even for long-span restorations.

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.

Comparing the accuracy of distinct scanning systems and their impact on marginal/internal adaptation of tooth-supported indirect restorations. A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the existing scientific evidence on the effect of distinct intraoral (IOS) and extraoral (EOS) scanners in terms of their accuracy for image acquisition and the marginal/internal adaptation of indirect restorations.

METHODS

The protocol of this scoping review is available online (https://osf.io/cwua7/). A structured search, with no date restriction, was performed in LILACS, MEDLINE via Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus, for articles written in English. The inclusion criteria were studies that considered at least two scanners, regardless of method (intra or extraoral), for the production of tooth-supported restorations. Two independent and blinded researchers screened the studies, collected and analyzed the data descriptively.

RESULTS

103 studies were included (55 on marginal/internal adaptation, 33 on accuracy, 5 on both outcomes, and 10 reviews). Most of them, shown clinically acceptable adaptation (<120 μm). Factors commonly related to the performance of scanners are: use of anti-reflection powders, method of image acquisition, and restoration/tooth characteristics. The need of anti-reflection powders was controversial. Different scanning principles seems to result on similar performance; IOS that combine them could be promising. The most explored systems were Omnicam - IOS, and inEos X5 - EOS, which showed similar performance on marginal/internal adaptation. Scarce studies explored the performance of EOS systems, especially in terms of accuracy. Different restoration designs as single-unit seemed not to modify the performance of scanners. Limited information is available regarding the planned cement space, restorative material and design (multi-unit restorations), as also techniques to measure adaptation.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scanners are valid approaches to obtain accurate impressions resulting in clinically acceptable restorations. Systems that uses combined principles of image acquisition seems promising for optimal performance. Based on high discrepancy, the quality of evaluated evidence is low, and well-designed studies are still encouraged, especially considering validated IOS/EOS as a control comparison condition.

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2-Patient factors

OBJECTIVES

To describe the factors related to patient intraoral conditions that impact the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these influencing factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision-making and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.

OVERVIEW

Variables related to intraoral conditions of the patient that can influence the scanning accuracy of IOSs include tooth type, presence of interdental spaces, arch width variations, palate characteristics, wetness, existing restorations, characteristics of the surface being digitized, edentulous areas, interimplant distance, position, angulation, and depth of existing implants, and implant scan body selection.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge and understanding of the patient's intraoral conditions that can impact the scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The patient's intraoral conditions, or patient factors, can significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing patient factors to maximize the accuracy of IOSs.

Effect of preparation type on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study at different levels of accuracy evaluation

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the effect of preparation type (inlay, onlay, and crown) on the accuracy of different intraoral scanning (IOS) systems at the preparation and arch segment levels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three molars were prepared for inlay, onlay, and crown. Each preparation was scanned 10 times by CEREC Omnicam, Trios 3 (TS), and Medit i500 scanners. Each image was trimmed twice. The first trimming produced a preparation image (PI), and the second trimming extracted a segment image (SI) that involved the preparation with the adjacent teeth. Trueness and precision were calculated at the PI and SI levels.

RESULTS

At the PI level, all IOS systems had similar trueness pattern for all preparations, where the inlay had the best trueness followed by the crown and onlay. At the SI level, the different preparations showed similar trueness. The precision did not show a clear pattern of superiority for any preparation. The TS was significantly more precise than other IOS systems at the PI and SI levels, for every preparation. The proximal areas suffered from the greatest errors, regardless of preparation type.

CONCLUSIONS

The preparation type influenced PI trueness, and the IOS system affected PI and SI precisions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The smaller and less complex preparations have greater IOS accuracy than larger and more complex preparations. As the proximal areas are more affected regardless of the preparation, a more accessible proximal area for scanning is desirable.