In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants

The accuracy of intra-oral scanners in full arch implant rehabilitation: a narrative review

This narrative review aims to study the accuracy of different intra-oral scanner (IOS) devices already available on the market. The accuracy emerged during in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo studies made with IOS devices during the scan of a full arch implant rehabilitation that have been analysed to evaluate which device may be the most suitable in this clinical situation. The literature review was performed by searching topics and keywords using the PubMed and Medline databases, for example, 'digital workflow', 'full arch', 'full arch implant rehabilitation' and 'accuracy of IOS'. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies were: correct IMRAD (introduction, methods, results and discussion) structure; article with clear and detailed objectives; consistency of the articles with the purpose of the review; two-year range from the year of publication of the article; reproducible materials and methods; and correct follow-up. Most of the intra-oral scanners employed in vitro provided acceptable accuracy (below a threshold of 150 μm). The main parameters identified for their influence on precision were interim plant distance, body scan design, scanning pattern and operator experience. Even though literature is limited, significant differences emerged between the different models of intra-oral scanners evaluated in the studies considered within this review.

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.

3D-3D dentition superimposition for individual identification: A study of an Eastern Chinese population

Recently, 3D dental intraoral scanning technology has been developed rapidly and applied widely in everyday dental practice. Since 3D dental scanning could provide valuable personal information, it enabled researchers to develop novel procedures for individual identification through 3D-3D dentition superimposition. This study aimed to test the applicability of this method in an Eastern Chinese population and propose a threshold for personal identification. For this purpose, 40 volunteers were recruited, and the initial 80 (upper and lower) 3D intraoral scans (IOS) were collected. After one year, 80 IOS of these volunteers were repeatedly collected. In addition, the other 120 IOS of 60 patients were extracted from the database. The 3D models were trimmed, aligned, and superimposed via Geomagic Control X software, and then the root mean square (RMS) value of point-to-point distance between the two models was calculated. The superimposition of two IOS belonging to the same individual was considered as a match, and superimposition of two IOS belonging to different individuals was considered as a mismatch. Totally, superimpositions of 80 matches and 3120 mismatches were obtained. Intra- and inter-observer errors were assessed through the calculation of relative technical error of measurement (rTEM). Mann-Whitney U test verified possible statistically significant differences between matches and mismatches (P < 0.05). The rTEM of intra- and inter-observer repeatability analyses was lower than 4.7 %. The range of RMS value was 0.05-0.18 mm in matches and 0.72-2.28 mm in mismatches without overlapping. The percentage of accurate identification reached 100 % in blind test through an arbitrary RMS threshold of 0.45 mm. The results indicated that individual identification through the 3D-3D dentition superimposition was effective in Eastern Chinese population. Successful identification could be achieved with high probability when the RMS value of the point-to-point distance of two dentitions is <0.45 mm.

The precision of two alternative indirect workflows for digital model production: an illusion or a possibility?

OBJECTIVE

Despite the clear drive from both research and clinical dentistry toward digital transformation, there are limitations to implementing intra-oral scanning (IOS) into daily dental practice. This study aimed to compare the precision of digital models obtained from two alternative indirect workflows to direct IOS.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two indirect digital workflows were evaluated in this study. In the IOS group (direct), IOS directly obtained digital impressions of participants' upper and lower dental arches, while in the Scan Impression (Scan Imp) group (indirect), a desktop scanner scanned silicone-based impressions of upper and lower whole arches that were taken with plastic trays. In the cone-beam computed tomography impression (CBCT Imp) group (indirect), a CBCT machine scanned the silicone-based impressions. Then, the precision of the entire arch and individual teeth for all digital impressions was virtually quantified. Following superimposition, differences between standard tessellation language (STL) files obtained from both-direct and indirect-methods were evaluated by color-mapping and measuring the surface distance between superimposed STL files. Furthermore, 18 linear measurements were taken from each digital model. ANOVA with repeated measures, Pearson coefficient, and intraclass correlation coefficient were used for intergroup comparisons.

RESULTS

The digital models obtained from the two indirect workflows differed from the IOS in some dental and intra-arch measurements but were considered clinically acceptable. Ranked against IOS, CBCT Imp models had greater precision, followed by Scan Imp.

CONCLUSION

Digital models obtained from two indirect, alternative workflows, desktop, and CBCT scanning of impression, have clinically acceptable accuracy and reliability of tooth size and intra-arch measurements, providing the use of proper methodologies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

There are some limitations to implementing IOS in daily clinical practice. However, several alternative digital model production techniques might provide an affordable solution. Although they may insignificantly differ in accuracy, all can be applied clinically.

In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners by comparing the trueness and precision of several types of scanners in measuring the distance between the ball abutments on pairs of multiple implants.

Methods

Seven implants were placed on a fully edentulous upper jaw model. After ball abutments were attached to the implants on the master model, the three-dimensional (3D) shape of the model was evaluated using a computer numerical control 3D coordinate-measuring machine. Subsequently, the 3D shape-related data of the model were obtained using two types of intraoral scanners (3M True Definition Scanner [TDS] and 3Shape Trios3 [TR3]) and two types of laboratory scanners (KaVo ARCTICA Auto Scan [KA] and Identica Hybrid [IH]). Using the obtained 3D shape-related data, the trueness and precision in measuring the distance between the balls within seven pairs of ball abutments were compared among the scanners using 3D analysis software.

Results

Intraoral scanners produced significantly greater errors in trueness and precision than laboratory scanners in measuring the distances between the ball abutments in all the dental regions. Between the intraoral scanners, powder-requiring TDS produced significantly lower errors at inflection points than powder-free TR3.

Conclusions

These results indicate that an optical impression technique using an intraoral scanner is suitable for dental implant treatment in patients with a few missing teeth.

Accuracy of full-arch digitalization for partially edentulous jaws - a laboratory study on basis of coordinate-based data analysis

Objectives

To compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of direct digitization of four different dental gap situation with two IOS (intraoral scanner).

Materials and methods

Four partially edentulous polyurethane mandible models were used: (1) A (46, 45, 44 missing), (2) B (45, 44, 34, 35 missing), (3) C (42, 41, 31, 32 missing), and (4) D (full dentition). On each model, the same reference object was fixed between the second molars of both quadrants. A dataset (REF) of the reference object was generated by a coordinate measuring machine. Each model situation was scanned by (1) OMN (Cerec AC Omnicam) and (2) PRI (Cerec Primescan AC) (n = 30). Datasets of all 8 test groups (N = 240) were analyzed using inspection software to determine the linear aberrations in the X-, Y-, Z-axes and angular deviations. Mann–Whitney U and two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests were used to detect differences for trueness and precision.

Results

PRI revealed higher trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overrightarrow{V}}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E 120.95 to 175.01 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E(x) − 58.50 to − 9.40 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (z) − 70.35 to 63.50 μm), while OMN showed higher trueness for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (y) regardless of model situation (− 104.90 to 34.55 μm). Model D revealed the highest trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters regardless of IOS (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E 120.95 to 195.74 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (x) − 9.40 to 66.75 μm,\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (y) − 14.55 to 51.50 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (z) 63.50 to 120.75 μm).

Conclusions

PRI demonstrated higher accuracy in the X- and Z-axes, while OMN depicted higher trueness in the Y-axis. For PRI, Model A revealed the highest distortion, while for OMN, Model B produced the largest aberrations in most parameters.

Clinical relevance

Current results suggest that both investigated IOS are sufficiently accurate for the manufacturing of tooth-borne restorations and orthodontic appliances. However, both hardware specifications of IOS and the presence of edentulous gaps in the dental model have an influence on the accuracy of the virtual model dataset.

Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review

Background

With the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results.

Main text

Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear.

Conclusions

Heterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.

Accuracy of commercial intraoral scanners

Purpose: In dental offices, there is a trend replacing conventional silicone impressions and plaster cast models by imaging data of intraoral scanners to map the denture and surrounding tissues. The aim of the study is the analysis of the accuracy of selected commercially available scanners. The accuracy is considered as the main drawback in comparison to the conventional approach.

Approach: We evaluated the reproduction performance of five optical scanners by a direct comparison with high-resolution hard x-ray computed tomography data, all obtained from a polyetheretherketone model with similarity to a full-arch upper jaw.

Results: Using the software GOM Inspect (GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany), we could classify the intraoral scanners into two groups. The more accurate instruments gave rise to the following precision values: 35  μm (TRIOS^® 3, 3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), 43  μm (CS 3600, Carestream, Atlanta, Georgia), and 46  μm (3M™ True Definition Scanner, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota). The less precise systems yielded 93  μm (Medit i500, Medit corp., Seongbuk-gu, South Korea) and 97  μm (Emerald™, Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland).

Conclusions: The selected scanners are suitable for single crowns, small bridges, and separate quadrants prostheses. Scanners based on triangulation are hardly appropriate for full-arch prostheses. Besides precision, however, the choice of the scanner depends on scanning time, intraoral-camera size, and the user’s learning curve. The developed protocol, which includes three-dimensional (3D) imaging and advanced computational tools for the registration with the design data, will be increasingly used in geometrical metrology by nondestructive procedures to perform dimensional measurements with micrometer precision and is capable for detailed 3D geometrical models reconstruction.

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05).

RESULTS

After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators.

CONCLUSIONS

Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.

Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: A pilot clinical trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of impressions for implant-supported prostheses is essential to ensure a passive fit of the definitive prosthesis. Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have been developed as an alternative to complete-arch implant-supported restorations; however, whether they are sufficiently accurate when more than 3 nonaligned implants are involved is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this pilot clinical study was to determine whether the fit of complete-arch zirconia implant-supported frameworks processed on a cast obtained with an IOS and adjusted with an auxiliary device is equivalent to a prosthesis obtained from an elastomeric impression.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve consecutive participants who were ready for complete-arch restorations on already osseointegrated implants were enrolled. Two records were made, one open-tray with polyether and splinted impression copings and the second with an IOS. A verification gypsum device was used for the elastomeric impression, and a prefabricated auxiliary device was used to adjust the intraoral scans. Two zirconia frameworks with the same design were processed and evaluated intraorally by 2 independent calibrated observers.

RESULTS

In 11 of the 12 participants, the digitally processed prosthesis was preferred over the conventionally processed prosthesis. The clinical fit of the prostheses obtained with the completely digital workflow was better than that of those obtained with the conventional workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a prefabricated auxiliary device after intraoral scanning allowed delivery of complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses with a fit better than those fabricated from conventional impressions.

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression.

METHODS

A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed.

RESULTS

With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Congruence between Meshes and Library Files of Implant Scanbodies: An In Vitro Study Comparing Five Intraoral Scanners

Purpose. To compare the reliability of five different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in the capture of implant scanbodies (SBs) and to verify the dimensional congruence between the meshes (MEs) of the SBs and the corresponding library file (LF). Methods. A gypsum cast of a fully edentulous maxilla with six implant analogues and SBs screwed on was scanned with five different IOSs (PRIMESCAN^®, CS 3700^®, MEDIT i-500^®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^®, and Emerald S^®). Ten scans were taken for each IOS. The resulting MEs were imported to reverse engineering software for 3D analysis, consisting of the superimposition of the SB LF onto each SB ME. Then, a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the deviations between MEs and LF was performed. A careful statistical analysis was performed. Results. PRIMESCAN^® showed the highest congruence between SB MEs and LF, with the lowest mean absolute deviation (25.5 ± 5.0 μm), immediately followed by CS 3700^® (27.0 ± 4.3 μm); the difference between them was not significant (p = 0.1235). PRIMESCAN^® showed a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500^® (29.8 ± 4.8 μm, p < 0.0001), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® (34.2 ± 9.3 μm, p < 0.0001), and Emerald S^® (38.3 ± 7.8 μm, p < 0.0001). CS 3700^® had a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500^® (p = 0.0004), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® (p < 0.0001), and Emerald S^® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were also found between MEDIT i-500^® and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® (p < 0.0001), MEDIT i-500^® and Emerald S^® (p < 0.0001), and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® and Emerald S^® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were found among different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. The deviations of the IOSs showed different directions and patterns. With PRIMESCAN^®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^®, and Emerald S^®, the MEs were included inside the LF; with CS 3700^®, the LF was included in the MEs. MEDIT i-500^® showed interpolation between the MEs and LF, with no clear direction for the deviation. Conclusions. Statistically different levels of congruence were found between the SB MEs and the corresponding LF when using different IOSs. Significant differences were also found between different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. Finally, the qualitative evaluation revealed different directions and patterns for the five IOSs.