A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners

Comparative Analysis of Four Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

(1) Background: Intraoral scanners undergo rapid advancements in hardware and software, prompting frequent updates by manufacturers. (2) Aim: This study aimed to quantitatively assess the precision of full dental arch digital impressions obtained from four different intraoral scanners: Trios 5-3SHAPE, Copenhagen, Denmark, CEREC Primescan- Dentsply Sirona, New York, NY, USA, Planmeca Emerald S-Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland, and Medit i700-Medit Corp, Seoul, Republic of Korea. (3) Methods: A maxillary virtual dental model (digital master model) was created in accordance with ISO standard 20896-1. Subsequently, a 3D-printed model was obtained from the master model's STL file and scanned 15 times consecutively with each scanner. STL files were aligned with the master model's STL using Medit Link-Medit Design software v.3.1.0. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring deviations in micrometers between each scanner's scans and the master model. (4) Results: The study revealed variations in accuracy ranging from 23 to 32 µm across scans of the same dental arch, irrespective of the scanner used and scanning strategy employed. The anterior regions exhibited higher precision (Mean Absolute Deviation of 112 µm) compared to the posterior regions (Mean Absolute Deviation of 127 µm). Trios 5 demonstrated the smallest deviation (average 112 µm), indicating superior accuracy among the scanners tested. Emerald S and Medit i700 exhibited balanced performance (average 117 µm and 114 µm, respectively), while Primescan consistently displayed high deviation (average 127 µm). (5) Conclusions: Based on clinically accepted thresholds for accuracy in intraoral scanning, which are typically 200 µm for full arch scans, Trios 5 surpasses these benchmarks with its average deviation falling within the 200 µm range. Emerald S and Medit i700 also meet these standards, while Primescan, although showing high overall deviation, approaches the upper limit of clinical acceptability. Considering the limitations of an in vitro investigation, the findings demonstrate that each intraoral scanner under evaluation is capable of reliably and consistently capturing a full arch scan for dentate patients.

Positional accuracy of a single implant analog in additively manufactured casts in biobased model resin

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the positional accuracy of implant analogs in biobased model resin by comparing them to that of implant analogs in model resin casts and conventional analogs in dental stone casts.

METHODS

Polyvinylsiloxane impressions of a partially edentulous mandibular model with a single implant were made and poured in type IV dental stone. The same model was also digitized with an intraoral scanner and additively manufactured implant casts were fabricated in biobased model resin (FotoDent biobased model) and model resin (FotoDent model 2 beige-opaque) (n = 8). All casts and the model were digitized with a laboratory scanner, and the scan files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Control X). The linear deviations of 2 standardized points on the scan body used during digitization were automatically calculated on x-, y-, and z-axes. Average deviations were used to define precision, and 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Biobased model resin led to higher deviations than dental stone (all axes, P ≤ 0.031) and model resin (y-axis, P = 0.015). Biobased model resin resulted in the lowest precision of implant analog position (P ≤ 0.049). The difference in the positional accuracy of implant analogs of model resin and stone casts was nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.196).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant analogs in biobased model resin casts mostly had lower positional accuracy, whereas those in model resin and stone casts had similar positional accuracy. Regardless of the material, analogs deviated more towards mesial, while buccal deviations in additively manufactured casts and lingual deviations in stone casts were more prominent.

Effect of scan body designs and internal conical angles on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Axial displacement is inevitable when connecting scan bodies to implants for digital scans using intraoral scanners, and axial displacement may reduce implant position accuracy in digital casts. However, studies assessing scan body type and accuracy are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the linear and angular displacements of implants in digital casts using 2 scan body types with or without a vertical stop to minimize the axial displacement and 2 internal conical connection implants (ICCIs) with different internal conical angles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two identical reference casts were fabricated from epoxy resin by duplicating a partially edentulous mandibular dentiform. Each cast received 3 implants in the left first premolar, first molar, and second molar regions. One cast received an ICCI with a 7-degree internal conical angle (7-degree ICCI), and the other received an ICCI with an 11-degree internal conical angle (11-degree ICCI). A 10-mm polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cube was attached to the buccal area of the mandibular second premolar of each reference cast. A vertical stop was used in the experimental scan bodies to minimize the axial displacement, and conventional scan bodies were hand tightened to the implants in the reference casts. An intraoral scanner was used to fabricate 4 digital cast groups (2 implant types and 2 scan body types; each group had 10 casts). A coordinate measuring machine and digital inspection software program were used to measure the implant platform centroids (x, y, z) and projection angles (θXY, θYZ, θZX) of implant long axes in the reference and digital casts, respectively. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear mixed model both with Tukey post hoc and 2-way ANOVA tests were performed to assess the significance of linear and angular displacements between groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences were noted in all linear displacement variables among the 4 digital cast groups, except for Δx in the left first premolar implant. For the 7-degree ICCI, the linear displacement was statistically similar in the experimental and conventional scan bodies. However, for the 11-degree ICCIs, the experimental scan body group resulted in significantly smaller Δy, Δz, and Δd (Δd2=Δx2+Δy2+Δz2) than the conventional scan body group (P<.05). Overall, the 11-degree ICCIs demonstrated a significantly greater linear displacement than the 7-degree ICCI, regardless of the scan body type (P<.05). Significant differences between the test groups were observed for 10 of the 12 angular displacement variables (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The 11-degree ICCIs demonstrated significantly greater linear displacements in Δy, Δz, and Δr than the 7-degree ICCIs. The experimental scan bodies with a vertical stop demonstrated significantly smaller linear displacements in the 11-degree ICCIs.

Effect of preparation design and scan pattern on the accuracy of intraoral scans for complete arch laminate veneers under simulated intraoral variables

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of different preparation designs and scan patterns on the accuracy of intraoral scans for complete-arch maxillary laminate veneers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three maxillary typodonts were used to obtain reference models with three different laminate veneer preparation designs: windows (W), beveled (B), and incisal overlap (IO). Reference scans were obtained with a desktop scanner. A total of 90 complete arch intraoral scans were made with an intraoral scanner (Medit i700) following three different scan patterns: straight motion (SM), zigzag motion (ZM), and combined motion (CM). Ten scans were made in each subgroup and exported as standard tessellation language (STL) files. Assessment of accuracy was conducted with a 3D software analysis program (Geomagic Control X). Each STL file was individually aligned with the reference scan using the best fit algorithm tool, and 3D differences were calculated using the root mean square (RMS) value. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by post hoc comparison tests were applied to analyze precision and trueness data (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Two-way ANOVA and post hoc comparison tests revealed significant differences among different preparation designs and scan patterns (p < 0.05). Regarding trueness, the IO when scanned with SM presented higher mean RMS than the other preparation designs (W and B) scanned with the same scanning pattern (p < 0.05). Regarding precision, the groups of W and IO presented significantly higher mean RMS than the group of B when scanned with ZM (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Accuracy of intraoral scans for complete-arch laminate veneers was affected by different laminate veneer preparation designs and scan patterns.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Modifying scan pattern according to preparation design helps to improve scan accuracy for complete-arch laminate veneers.

Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners.

RESULTS

Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (p value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (p value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate.

CONCLUSION

For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.

Fabrication trueness and internal fit of different lithium disilicate ceramics according to post-milling firing and material type

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether post-milling firing and material type affect the fabrication trueness and internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns.

METHODS

A prefabricated cobalt chromium abutment was digitized to design a mandibular right first molar crown. This design file was used to fabricate crowns from different lithium disilicate ceramics (nano-lithium disilicate (AM), fully crystallized lithium disilicate (IN), advanced lithium disilicate (TS), and lithium disilicate (EX)) (n = 10). Crowns, the abutment, and the crowns when seated on the abutment were digitized by using an intraoral scanner. Fabrication trueness was assessed by using the root mean square method, while the internal fit was evaluated according to the triple scan method. These processes were repeated after the post-milling firing of AM, TS, and EX. Paired samples t-tests were used to analyze the effect of post-milling firing within AM, TS, and EX, while all materials were compared with 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Post-milling firing reduced the surface deviations and internal gap of AM and EX (P ≤ 0.014). AM mostly had higher deviations and internal gaps than other materials (P ≤ 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-milling firing increased the trueness and internal fit of tested nano-lithium disilicate and lithium disilicate ceramics. Nano-lithium disilicate mostly had lower trueness and higher internal gap; however, the maximum meaningful differences among tested materials were small. Therefore, the adjustment duration and clinical fit of tested crowns may be similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested lithium disilicate ceramics may be suitable alternatives to one another in terms of fabrication trueness and internal fit, considering the small differences in measured deviations and internal gaps.

Evaluation of repeatability of different alignment methods to obtain digital interocclusal records: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The alignment of the maxillary and mandibular digital scans obtained with an intraoral scanner (IOS) generates digital interocclusal records. Although the accuracy of maxillary and mandibular digital scans obtained from an IOS is widely studied, the accuracy of digital interocclusal records obtained with them is not; even less studied is the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the alignment methods that are available to obtain them.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the precision under repeatability conditions (repeatability) of the different alignment methods used to obtain digital interocclusal records.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Digital scans of maxillary and mandibular casts of a dentate healthy adult were acquired with an IOS. Casts were then mounted in maximum intercuspal position in a semi-adjustable mechanical articulator (1801 AR Model PSH Articulator), and left and right occlusal digital scans were acquired with the IOS. Occlusal digital scans were repeated 7 times under repeatability conditions. After obtaining each pair of occlusal digital scans, the software program of the IOS automatically aligned the maxillary and mandibular digital scans with occlusal digital scans (TRI method), resulting in 7 digital interocclusal records composed of aligned maxillary and mandibular digital scans and occlusal digital scans. All 7 sets of aligned digital scans were exported and realigned in a dental computer-aided design software program by means of global and reference alignment methods (EXO-B and EXO-R methods, respectively). To assess the repeatability, the 7 aligned digital scan sets of each group were repositioned in the common coordinate system by aligning maxillary digital scans, and repeatability was calculated in terms of the distance between the vertices of the mandibular digital scans for each of the possible nonrepeating combinations of pairs (7C2=21). The repeatability was tested by using the Kruskal-Wallis test for nonparametric distribution followed by the Mann-Whitney U test and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons (α=.05).

RESULTS

The median with interquartile range for the TRI alignment method was 47 (27) μm for the EXO-B method 41 (25) μm and 16 (5) μm for EXO-R. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistical difference between test groups (P<.05). The post hoc Dunn test with Bonferroni adjustment detected significant statistical differences between the EXO-R-TRI (P<.001) and EXO-R-EXO-B (P<.001) alignment methods.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the alignment method could influence the repeatability of digital interocclusal records. The reference best-fit alignment method (EXO-R) provided better repeatability.

Evaluation of the accuracy of direct intraoral scanner impressions for digital post and core in various post lengths: An in-vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Despite the growing utilization of direct intraoral scanners (IOSs) in dentistry, there is a scarcity of research investigating their accuracy, specifically in post and core. Few studies have conducted comprehensive three-dimensional assessments and comparisons of IOSs with the conventional impression technique, particularly in different post space lengths.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to digitally assess the accuracy of direct intraoral scanner (IOS) impressions for different post space lengths, specifically 6, 8, and 10 mm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 45 typodont teeth (maxillary central incisors) were selected for this study. The teeth underwent endodontic treatment and were divided into three subgroups, each with 15 teeth, based on the desired post space lengths: 6, 8, and 10 mm. Intraoral scans of all specimens were acquired directly using the CEREC Primescan intraoral scanners by two trained examiners. The obtained scan data were compared with conventional impressions obtained using light and heavy bodies of polyvinyl siloxane (PVS). As a control, the conventional impressions were subsequently scanned using an inEos X5a lab scanner. The accuracy of the digital scans was evaluated in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds using the Geomagic Control X software. Statistical analysis was performed using Bonferroni Post-hoc and One-way ANOVA tests to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The overall mean root mean square (RMS) deviations for the different post lengths across the three thirds groups were 58, 81, and 101 μm for the 6, 8, and 10 mm subgroups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the accuracy of the coronal and middle thirds among all subgroups (p > 0.5). However, in the apical third, the 10 mm subgroup exhibited a significantly lower accuracy (163 μm) compared to the 6 mm (96 μm) and 8 mm (131 μm) subgroups (p < 0.05). These results suggest that while the accuracy of intraoral scans using direct IOS impressions was consistent in the coronal and middle thirds regardless of the post length, there was a noticeable decrease in accuracy in the apical third, particularly with longer post lengths.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, chairside direct IOS impressions offer a viable and clinically acceptable alternative to the conventional impression technique for post space lengths of 6 and 8 mm. However, as the post space length preparation increases, the accuracy of IOS decreases.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The Chairside direct IOS enables expedited and efficient digital impression capture within the root canal, ensuring acceptable accuracy for intracanal post length preparation of up to 8 mm.

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.

Marginal and internal fit of five-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses fabricated with digital scans and conventional impressions: A comparative in vitro study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of five-unit zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated using digital scans and conventional impressions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine master models with three zirconia abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner (test group), and nine conventional impressions (control group) of these same models were also made. The stone casts from these impressions were scanned with a laboratory extraoral scanner (D700, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). A total of 18 five-unit zirconia-based FDP frameworks (test group, n = 9; control group, n = 9) were manufactured. Marginal and internal fit (in μm) were evaluated using the replica method under micro-computed tomography. Analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare continuous variables across two groups. A level of p < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean ± standard deviation of the marginal fit was 95.03 ± 12.74 μm in the test group and 106.02 ± 14.51 μm in the control group. The lowest marginal mean value was observed in the test group, with a statistically significant difference compared to the control group (F = 14.56, p < 0.05). The mean ± standard deviation of the internal fit was 103.61 ± 9.32 and 106.38 ± 7.64 μm, respectively, in the test and control groups, with no statistically significant difference (F = 1.56, p > 0.05). The mean values of both groups were clinically acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

The five-unit zirconia-based FDPs fabricated with digital scans showed better fit than those in the conventional impression group. Within the limitations of this study, these results are encouraging, and continued progress in the digital field should allow for more accurate long-span restorations.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment scan body system scans at different sites of maxilla after multiple repositioning of the scan body

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of the scans of the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system located at different sites of the maxilla when SBs are replaced in between each scan.

METHODS

Three SBs were seated into HAs located at the central incisor, first premolar, and first molar sites of a maxillary model inside a phantom head, and the model was scanned extraorally (CEREC Primescan SW 5.2). This procedure was repeated with new SBs until a total of 10 scans were performed. Standard tessellation language files of CHA-SBs at each implant location were isolated, transferred into analysis software (Geomagic Control X), and superimposed over the proprietary library files to analyze surface (root mean square), linear, and angular deviations. Trueness and precision were evaluated with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests. The correlation between surface and angular deviations was analyzed with Pearson's correlation (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Molar implant scans had the highest surface and angular deviations (P≤.006), while central incisor implant scans had higher precision (surface deviations) than premolar implant scans (P=.041). Premolar implant scans had higher accuracy than central incisor implant scans on the y-axis (P≤.029). Central incisor implant scans had the highest accuracy on the z-axis (P≤.018). A strong positive correlation was observed between surface and angular deviations (r = 0.864, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Central incisor implant scans mostly had high accuracy and molar implant scans mostly had lower trueness. SBs were mostly positioned apically; however, the effect of SB replacement can be considered small as measured deviations were similar to those in previous studies and the precision of scans was high.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Repositioning of scan bodies into healing abutments would be expected to result in similar single crown positioning regardless of the location of the implant, considering high scan precision with the healing abutment-scan body system. The duration of the chairside adjustments of crowns in the posterior maxilla may be longer than those in the anterior region.

Trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans when different data acquisition methods are used

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of different data acquisition methods on the trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans.

METHODS

An edentulous polyurethane master mandibular model with 6 implants was digitized by using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80 5MP) to obtain a master standard tessellation language (MSTL) file. The master model was also digitized by using either direct digital workflow with a stereoscopic camera (iCam 4D (IM)) or intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan (PS) and Trios 4 (T4)) or indirect digital workflow with laboratory scanners (inEos X5 (X5) and CARES 7 (S7)) to obtain test-scan STLs (n = 10). All STL files were imported into a metrology-grade analysis software (Geomagic Control X 2020.1) and test-scan STLs were superimposed over MSTL. The root mean square method was used to calculate surface deviations, while angular deviations were also calculated. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests were used to evaluate measured deviations (surface and angular) for trueness and precision (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

X5 and S7 had the lowest, and IM had the highest surface deviations (P ≤ .036). The angular deviations of PS were lower than those of X5, S7, and IM (P ≤ .008). When surface deviations were considered, T4 had the lowest precision among tested scanners (P ≤ .002), and the scans of IM had higher precision than those of PS (P = .003). Scanner type did not affect the precision of the scans when angular deviations were considered (P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

The data acquisition method affected the trueness (surface and angular deviations) and precision (surface deviations) of mandibular complete-arch implant scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested data acquisition methods may be feasible to digitize mandibular complete-arch implants considering the deviations of the scans, which were in the range of previously reported thresholds, and the high precision of scans. However, the frameworks fabricated with the direct digital workflow that involves the scans of the stereoscopic camera might require more adjustments than those fabricated by using the scans of other tested scanners.

Effect of scan powder and scanning technology on measured deviations of complete-arch implant supported frameworks digitized with industrial and intraoral scanners

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the suitability of intraoral scanners (IOSs) to analyze the fabrication trueness of titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks by comparing with an industrial-grade scanner and investigate how anti-reflective scan powder affects measured deviations.

METHODS

Ten titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks were milled from a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. An industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80 (AT)) and three IOSs (Primescan (PS), TRIOS T3 (T3), and TRIOS T4 (T4)) with (PS-P, T3-P, and T4-P) or without (PS, T3, and T4) anti-reflective scan powder application were used to generate test STL (TSTL) files of the frameworks. Reference STL and TSTLs were imported into a metrology-grade analysis software (Geomagic Control X) and whole surface root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. Another software (Medit Link v 2.4.4) was used to virtually isolate marginal surfaces of all STL files and marginal RMS values were calculated by using the same metrology-grade analysis software. A linear mixed effects model was used to compare the transformed deviations of the scans performed by using each IOS (with or without powder) with the deviations of those performed by using the reference AT scanner within each surface, where a Box-Cox type transformation was used for variance stability. Bonferroni corrected post-hoc tests were used to compare conditions within each IOS (α=0.05).

RESULTS

All IOSs had significantly higher whole surface and marginal RMS values than AT, regardless of the condition (P≤.002). However, scan powder application did not affect the whole surface and marginal RMS values in scans of tested IOSs (P≥.054).

CONCLUSION

Measured whole surface and marginal deviations in all IOS scans performed with or without the use of scan powder were higher than those in AT scans. The application of anti-reflective scan powder did not affect the deviations in scans of tested IOSs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Even though deviations measured in the scans of tested scanners were significantly different than those in the reference scanner, the maximum raw mean difference was 37.33 µm and the maximum raw confidence interval value of estimated differences was 47.88 µm, which can be considered clinically small taking into account the size of the frameworks tested. Therefore, tested intraoral scanners may be feasible to scan prostheses similar to or smaller than tested frameworks for fabrication trueness analysis, which may facilitate potential clinical adjustments.

Comparison of intraoral and laboratory scanners to an industrial-grade scanner while analyzing the fabrication trueness of polymer and titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks

OBJECTIVES

To compare the scans of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) and laboratory scanners (LBSs) to those of an industrial-grade optical scanner by measuring deviations of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks from their virtual design file.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and 10 titanium (Ti) complete-arch implant-supported frameworks were milled from a master standard tessellation language (STL) file. An industrial-grade blue light scanner (AT), 2 LBSs (MT and E4), and 3 IOSs (PS, T3, and T4) were used to generate STL files of these frameworks. All STLs were imported into an analysis software (Geomagic Control X) and overall root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. Marginal surfaces of all STL files were then virtually isolated (Medit Link v 2.4.4) and marginal RMS values were calculated. Deviations in scans of tested scanners were compared with those in scans of AT by using a linear mixed effects model (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

When the scans of PEEK frameworks were considered, PS and T3 had similar overall RMS to those of AT (p ≥ .076). However, E4 and T4 had higher and MT had lower overall RMS than AT (p ≤ .002) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 13.41 µm. When the scans of Ti frameworks were considered, AT had significantly lower overall RMS than tested scanners (p ≤ .010) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 31.35 µm. Scans of tested scanners led to significantly higher marginal RMS than scans of AT (p ≤ .006) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 53.90 µm for PEEK and 40.50 µm for Ti frameworks.

CONCLUSION

Only the PEEK framework scans of PS and T3 led to similar overall deviations to those of AT. However, scans of all tested scanners resulted in higher marginal deviations than those of AT scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scans performed by using PS and T3 may be alternatives to those of tested reference industrial scanner AT, for the overall fabrication trueness analysis of complete-arch implant-supported PEEK frameworks.

The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions

PURPOSE

This study is aimed to evaluate the effect of generation change on accuracy of IOSs on full-arch scans and the inter-operator reliability.

METHODS

In this study, 6 different IOS were tested: 3Shape Trios 3 (20.1.2.), 3Shape Trios 4 (20.1.1.), Medit i500 (2.3.6.), Medit i700 (2.4.6.), Planmeca Emerald (6.0.1.) and Planmeca Emerald S (6.0.1.). Eighteen dental students, inexperienced in scanning, took part in this study as operators. Each operator made 10 digital impressions; altogether, 30 impressions were made by each scanner. The 30 STL files were imported to the Geomagic Control X program, where they were compared to a reference STL file; the surface point's deviation of the full arch and the distance between the second molars' distobuccal cusps were measured, the inter-operator reliability was also investigated.

RESULTS

A significant increase in accuracy was found between Trios 3 and 4 in the case of both parameters and between Medit i500 and i700 in the case of full arch. There was no significant difference between Planmeca generations. In case of the inter-operator reliability no significant difference was detected.

CONCLUSION

Within this current study's limitation, it can be concluded that surface digitalization's accuracy can be modified with generation changes and that digital technology is less technique sensitive than traditional impression taking.

Digital mounting accuracy of 2 intraoral scanners with a single anterior or bilateral posterior occlusal scan: A three-dimensional analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although intraoral scanners (IOSs) are popular, few studies have evaluated the accuracy of digital mounting by using IOSs.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital mounting by using 2 IOSs and 2 occlusal scanning methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fourteen Ø5-mm zirconia balls were attached approximately 5 mm apical to the free gingival margin of both second molars, second premolars, and canines and between the central incisors in maxillary and mandibular epoxy casts. A polyetheretherketone hexagonal cube with a 10-mm-long edge was attached to the buccal side of the missing mandibular right first molar area, and the cube was used to set a part coordinate system. Two IOSs (TRIOS 3, Primescan) were used to assess the intra-arch and interarch accuracies. For intra-arch assessment, each IOS was used to digitally scan the mandibular epoxy cast 15 times and fabricate 15 datasets. The deviation of each zirconia ball centroid was statistically compared between the IOSs. For interarch assessment, each IOS was used to digitally scan the maxillary and mandibular epoxy casts, and the data were digitally mounted by using a single anterior occlusal scan (A) or bilateral posterior occlusal scan (P). Both occlusal scans were performed 15 times; therefore, 4 groups (15 datasets per group) of mounted digital datasets were assigned. The deviation of each maxillary zirconia ball centroid, as well as the interarch distance between the corresponding maxillary and mandibular zirconia ball centroids, were compared among the 4 groups. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction were used (α=.05).

RESULTS

Primescan had less deviation than TRIOS 3 in the complete arch scan. When the zirconia balls were close to the origin, the bilateral posterior occlusal scan produced less deviation of their centroids. Primescan produced decreased interarch distance in the anterior and posterior dentition, while TRIOS 3 produced increased interarch distance in the anterior dentition and decreased interarch distance in the posterior dentition.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant difference was noted in intra-arch accuracy between the IOSs, and the difference influenced the digital mounting accuracy. The type of occlusal scan and IOS significantly influenced the accuracy of digital mounting. Both IOSs produced decreased interarch distances in the second molar area.

Comparative Analysis between 3D-Printed Models Designed with Generic and Dental-Specific Software

With the great demand in the market for new dental software, the need has been seen to carry out a precision study for applications in digital dentistry, for which there is no comparative study, and there is a general ignorance regarding their applications. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy differences between digital impressions obtained using generic G-CAD (general CAD) and D-CAD (CAD dental) software. Today, there is a difference between the design software used in dentistry and these in common use. Thus, it is necessary to make a comparison of precision software for specific and generic dental use. We hypothesized that there is no significant difference between the software for specific and general dental use.

METHODS

A typodont was digitized with an intraoral scanner and the models obtained were exported in STL format to four different softwares (Autodesk MeshMixer 3.5, Exocad Dental, Blender for dental, and InLAB). The STL files obtained by each software were materialized using a 3D printer. The printed models were scanned and exported in STL files, with which six pairs of groups were formed. The groups were compared using analysis software (3D Geomagic Control X) by superimposing them in the initial alignment order and using the best fit method.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the four analyzed software types; however, group 4, composed of the combination of D-CAD (Blender-InLAB), obtained the highest average (-0.0324 SD = 0.0456), with a higher accuracy compared to the group with the lowest average (group 5, composed of the combination of the Meshmixer and Blender models), a generic software and a specific software (0.1024 SD = 0.0819).

CONCLUSION

Although no evidence of significant difference was found regarding the accuracy of 3D models produced by G-CAD and D-CAD, combinations of groups where specific dental design software was present showed higher accuracy (precision and trueness). The comparison of the 3D graphics obtained with the superimposition of the digital meshes of the printed models performed with the help of the analysis software using the best fit method, replicating the same five reference points for the six groups formed, evidenced a greater tolerance in the groups using D-CAD.

Fabrication trueness and internal fit of hybrid abutment crowns fabricated by using additively and subtractively manufactured resins

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the fabrication trueness and internal fit of hybrid abutment crowns fabricated by using additively and subtractively manufactured restorative materials.

METHODS

A maxillary first premolar crown with a screw access channel was designed onto a digitized master titanium base abutment. This file was used to fabricate 40 crowns additively (Crowntec (CT) and VarseoSmile Crown Plus (VS)) or subtractively (Brilliant Crios (BC) and Vita Enamic (EN)) (n = 10). Crowns were digitized with an intraoral scanner and root mean square method was used to evaluate fabrication trueness. Master abutment and the crowns when seated on the abutment were also digitized with the same intraoral scanner and triple scan method was used to evaluate internal fit. Data were analyzed either with 1-way ANOVA (surface deviations) or Kruskal-Wallis (internal fit) tests (α= 0.05).

RESULTS

CT had the highest overall, external, and marginal surface deviations (P≤.030), whereas BC had the lowest external (P≤.001) and VS and EN had the lowest marginal surface deviations (P≤.007). BC had the highest intaglio surface deviations (P<.001). BC and EN had higher average gap values CT and VS (P≤.006); however, the differences within additively and subtractively manufactured materials were nonsignificant (P≥.858).

CONCLUSIONS

One of the tested additively manufactured resins (CT) resulted in mostly lower trueness than that of other materials. However, deviations at the intaglio and marginal surfaces were generally small and the maximum mean difference among test groups when average gap was considered was 17.4 µm. Therefore, clinical fit of hybrid abutment crowns fabricated with tested materials may be similar.

3D assessment of the nasolabial region in cleft models comparing an intraoral and a facial scanner to a validated baseline

We aimed to validate the metric accuracy of a 3-dimensional (3D) facial scanner (FS) and an intraoral scanner (IOS) in capturing the nasolabial region in ex vivo unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) models. The nasolabial region of 10 UCLP models was scanned using a 3D FS as well as an IOS and a previously validated stationary 3D scanner as a reference. Intraoral scan was performed directly on the UCLP models. In order to apply the FS on the models, they were embedded in a 3D printed sample face. Both test groups were aligned to the reference by applying a section-based best-fit algorithm. Subsequent analysis of the metric deviation from the reference was performed with a 3D analysis tool. Mean distance and integrated distance served as main parameters for surface and volume comparison. Point comparison served as an additional parameter. Statistical analysis was carried out using t-test for unconnected samples. Considering mean distance and integrated distance as main parameters for 3D evaluation of the scanner's accuracy, FS and IOS differ significantly in their metric precision in scanning the cleft model compared to the reference. The IOS proved to be significantly more accurate than the FS compared to the previously described stationary 3D scanner as reference and validated baseline. Further validation of the tested IOS and FS for 3D assessment of the nasolabial region is presented by adding the previously validated ATOS III Triple Scan blue light scanner as a reference. The IOS shows, compared to a validated baseline scan, significantly higher metric precision in experimental cleft model scanning. The collected data provides a basis for clinical application of the IOS for 3D assessment of the nasolabial region.

Intraoral scanners in children: evaluation of the patient perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time-A systematic review

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the perception of the patient, the chairside time, and the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scanners for full arch in pediatric patients.

Methods

A data search was performed in four databases (Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, ProQuest and Web of Science) in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statements. Studies were classified in three categories (patient perception, scanning or impression time and reliability and/or reproducibility). The resources, the data extraction and the quality assessment were carried out independently by two operators. The variables recorded were population characteristics, material and methods aspects and included country, study design and main conclusion. A quality assessment of the selected studies was performed with QUADAS-2 tool, and Kappa-Cohen Index was calculated to analyze examiner agreement.

Results

The initial search obtained 681 publications, and finally four studies matching inclusion criteria were selected. The distribution of the studies in the categories was three for the analysis of the patient's perception and scanning or impression time; and two items to assess the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scans. All included studies have a repeated measures-transversal design. The sample size ranged between 26 and 59 children with a mean age. The intraoral scanners evaluated were Lava C.O.S, Cerec Omnicam, TRIOS Classic, TRIOS 3-Cart and TRIOS Ortho. The quality assessment of the studies using QUADAS-2 tool revealed a low risk of bias while evaluating patient perception, but an unclear risk of bias in the analysis of accuracy or chairside time. In relation to the applicability concerns, the patient selection was of high risk of bias. All studies agreed that the patient perception and comfort is better with intraoral scanners in comparison with the conventional method. The accuracy or reliability of the digital procedure is not clear, being clinically acceptable. In relation with the chairside time, it depends on the intraoral scanner, with contradictory data in the different analyzed studies.

Conclusion

The use of intraoral scanners in children is a favorable option, finding a significantly higher patient perception and comfort with intraoral scanners compared to the conventional impression method. The evidence for reliability or reproducibility is not strong to date, however, the differences between the intraoral measurements and the digital models would be clinically acceptable.

Effect of number of supports and build angle on the fabrication and internal fit accuracy of additively manufactured definitive resin-ceramic hybrid crowns

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of number of supports and build angle on the fabrication and internal fit accuracy (trueness and precision) of additively manufactured resin-ceramic hybrid crowns.

METHODS

A mandibular first molar crown was designed and nested on the build platform of a printer either with a 30° angle between the occlusal surface and the build platform (BLS (less support) and BMS (more support)) or its occlusal surface parallel to the build platform (VLS (less support) and VMS (more support)) to fabricate additively manufactured resin-ceramic hybrid crowns (n=14). After fabrication, supports were removed by a blinded operator and all crowns were digitized with an intraoral scanner. Fabrication accuracy (overall, external, intaglio occlusal, occlusal, and marginal) was evaluated by using root mean square (RMS) method, while internal fit was evaluated with triple scan method. RMS, average gap, and precision of these data were analyzed (α= .05).

RESULTS

VLS had higher overall deviations than BLS and VMS (P≤.039). VMS had higher occlusal deviations than BLS (P=.033). While BMS and BLS had higher marginal deviations than VLS (P≤.006), BMS also had higher values than VMS (P=.012). BLS led to higher precision than VMS (intaglio occlusal and occlusal surfaces) and VLS (occlusal surface) (P≤.008). VLS led to higher precision than BMS (marginal surface) (P=.027). Average gap values were similar (P=.723); however, BLS resulted in higher precision than VLS (P=.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering their high marginal and occlusal surface trueness, and similar internal occlusal deviations and average gaps (trueness), clinical fit of resin-ceramic hybrid crowns fabricated with tested parameters may be similar. Reduced number of supports and angled orientation may lead to higher precision of fit.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested resin-ceramic hybrid-printer pair may be used to fabricate crowns with reduced number of supports to maintain occlusal surface integrity without compromising the fabrication accuracy and fit.

The trueness of an intraoral scanner in scanning different post space depths

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of scanning the post space up to 20 mm with an intraoral scanner (IOS).

METHODS

We captured 20-, 18-, 16-, 14-, 12-, and 10-mm length post space scans using an IOS (Primescan) eight times each by shortening the apical 2 mm end of the same mandibular canine tooth. The reference impressions of each length group were taken using a light-body polyvinyl siloxane impression material and were scanned with an extraoral scanner. The recorded standard tessellation language (STL) data of all impressions were uploaded to a 3D matching program for the trueness evaluation via the root mean square (RMS) calculation. For the statistical analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Mann-Whitney U nonparametric tests were performed to compare the differences among the groups (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The median RMS values increased in direct proportion to the length of the post space from 10 mm (357.1 µm) to 20 mm (897.5 µm). We noted a significant difference among groups (p< 0.001). In the pairwise comparisons, there were no significant differences between the 14 mm and 16 mm groups (p=0.431) or between the 18 mm and 20 mm groups (p=0.036), while other paired groups showed significant differences (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The scanned space depth affected the trueness of the IOS (Primescan). If the post depth was below 14 mm, and the minimum diameter was 2.2 mm, Primescan could be used for impressions of the post-core structure, simplifying the impression procedure.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

IOS seems to be a promising technology for taking digital impressions of post spaces, but cannot be recommended as a routine procedure at its present stage, as final results are highly dependent on the clinical situation. Further studies with different IOS systems are needed to gain sound evidence.

A new proposal for improving the accuracy of intraoral scanning for partially edentulous residual ridge

PURPOSE

This study investigated the usefulness of a newly proposed intraoral scanning method, using markers that can be used directly in the oral cavity, in order to improve the accuracy of impression taking of the residual ridge for fabrication of removable partial dentures.

METHODS

An intraoral scanner was used to scan a dental model of a partially edentulous mandibular arch (Kennedy Class I). As markers, pieces of dried pasta were used. The scanning operation was performed under three conditions. In Condition 1, scanning was performed on the remaining teeth and the residual ridge without markers. In Condition 2, scanning of the remaining teeth and residual ridge was performed with markers. In Condition 3, the markers were removed from the model used in Condition 2, and the residual ridge was scanned again. The scanning data of each condition was superimposed on the control data, and the shape error was calculated and compared among the conditions.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in trueness of the residual ridge before and after marker application. The application of markers improved the trueness, while maintaining precision. Re-scanning after removing the marker did not affect trueness between before and after re-scanning and the re-scanned region showed shape continuity with the surrounding region.

CONCLUSION

The present method using markers that can be used in the oral cavity was effective in improving the accuracy of impression taking at the residual ridge.

Error propagation from intraoral scanning to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

. To evaluate deviation propagation from data acquisition with an intraoral scanner to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models.

METHODS

. A reference (Ref) mandibular dentate model having 5 precision spheres was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine equipped with a laser scanning head (ALTERA; Nikon) producing a Ni reference data set (n=1). Digital impressions were taken of the Ref model with intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4; 3Shape) with Insane (T4_Imo) and Classic (T4_Cmo) scanning modes (each n=10). T4_Imo scans were used as a second reference data set and to produce test models with two additive manufacturing (AM) devices (each n=10): MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems). As for the control group, dual viscosity vinyl polysiloxane impressions were taken of the Ref model and poured with Type IV dental stone (n=10). All AM and stone models were scanned with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape). Trueness and precision of linear (intermolar and intercanine width, arch length) and surface deviations were measured between reference (Ni, T4_Imo), test (T4_Cmo, AM), and control (stone) groups using best-fit alignments (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems). The normality of data and differences between the groups were analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Mann-Whitney U, Welch's t-test statistical analysis (p<0.05).

RESULTS

. The accuracy of the IOS impression was not significantly affected by the scanning mode (p>0.05). Stone models showed significantly better trueness than IOS impressions (p<0.05). AM models had higher trueness than IOS Imo digital impressions (p<0.05). The precision of AM models was comparable (linear, p>0.05) or lower (surface, p<0.05) than of IOS Imo digital impressions. Trueness was insignificantly different among the stone and AM models (p>0.05). Higher trueness was achieved by Max UV385 than with Nextdent 5100 (p<0.05). The majority of linear and all surface deviations of IOS impressions and AM models were below 200 μm.

CONCLUSIONS

. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, digital IOS impressions and AM models using the aforementioned equipment have acceptable accuracy for orthodontic and prosthodontic applications when complete-arch dentate records are used.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

. IOS and AM devices can have a significant influence on error propagation when applying digital workflow with complete-arch dentate models.

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.

Analysis of the relationship between the surface topography of prepared tooth surfaces and data quality of digital impressions from an intraoral scanner

Background/purpose

With the rise of digitalization in dentistry, intraoral scanners and digital impressions have recently been adopted by many clinicians. The aim of this study was to investigate surface topography of prepared teeth and the accuracy of digital impressions.

Materials and methods

Twenty mandibular typodonts, containing left first premolar and left first molar abutment teeth manufactured by using CAD/CAM, were used in this study. An intraoral scanner was used to scan each typodont, and each STL file generated was exported in high resolution (Group H), moderate resolution (Group M), and low resolution (Group L). All 60 files were inspected in a 3-D mesh processing software. For each file, the number of triangulation points in the meshwork were obtained for both abutment teeth.

Results

The measurements obtained from the 3-D mesh processing software revealed that the mean number of triangulation points on the 3-D surface of the abutment teeth (20 premolars + 20 M) were 790,625 ± 98,890 dots in Group H, 592,283 ± 74,881 dots in Group M, and 198,067 ± 19,328 dots in Group L. Significant differences were found between Group H and M (p < 0.05), Group H and L (p < 0.001), and Group M and L (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The outcomes of this study reveal that there are strong correlations between the data quality of digital impressions and surface topography of prepared teeth. Therefore, the utilization of STL files in high resolution format is the recommended choice for clinicians engaging in a digital workflow process.