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.

Comparison of reliability of three resonance frequency analysis devices: An in vitro study

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the intra-observer and inter-observer reliability of three resonance frequency analysis (RFA) devices and to compare the implant stability quotient (ISQ) values according to implant macro design and diameter in two different bone densities. A total of 64 implants (Neoss Proactive) of varying diameters (3.5 and 4.0 mm) and implant macro design (tapered and straight) were placed in two artificial bone blocks (the density of type 2 and 3). The implant primary stability was measured using Osstell IDx, Osstell Beacon and Penguin RFA. The ISQ value of each implant was measured by two observers and recorded five times in two directions. The intra-observer and inter-observer reliability of RFA devices were evaluated. In addition to that, mean ISQ values were calculated for each RFA device to evaluate the effect of implant diameter, implant macro design, and bone density on ISQ values. ISQ values were significantly higher for implants placed within the type 2 bone than for the type 3 bone. The 4.0 mm diameter implants presented higher ISQ values than 3.5 mm diameter implants. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) values for intra-observer reliability were above 0.85 for each observer and the ICC values for inter-observer reliability were 0.94, 0.93, 0.98 for Osstell IDx, Osstell Beacon and Penguin RFA, respectively. Although there was excellent inter-observer reliability with three RFA devices, the intra-observer reliability of Osstell Beacon and Penguin RFA were slightly better than Osstell IDx. Bone density and implant diameter were parameters affecting the primary stability of implants.

Effect of different composite materials used as core build-ups on the trueness of intraoral scanning

PURPOSE

To evaluate the trueness of digital impressions of different composite resin materials that can be used for core build-ups in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary central incisor was prepared and scanned with an intraoral scanner (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona). Ten composite resin specimens (in three groups: universal composite; flowable composite; and bulk fill resin composite) were milled in the same dimensions of the prepared tooth and scanned. The data of the prepared tooth were used as reference, and the data obtained from the composite resin specimens were aligned with the evaluation software (Geomagic Studio 12) to determine deviation values. Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn post hoc test was performed (α = .05).

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the trueness of digital impressions between some composite resin groups (P < .05). The mean trueness deviation values were in the range of 12.75 μ m (G-aenial Posterior) to 17.06 μ m (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior). The trueness of G-aenial Posterior (12.75 μ m) was higher than that of Core-X Flow (14.62 μ m), Clearfil Majesty Flow (16.93 μ m), and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (17.06 μ m). Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior exhibited lower trueness than Clearfil Majesty Esthetic (12.93 μ m), Clearfil Majesty Posterior (13.50 μ m), and Charisma Classic (13.81 μ m).

CONCLUSION

Different composite resins used for core build-up can impact the trueness of digital impressions, with universal composite resin scans being the truest compared to flowable and bulk fill composite resin scans. All scanned substrate groups can be regarded as within a clinically acceptable range.

Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of six intraoral scanners in two different partially edentulous maxillary models and to evaluate the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Maxillary Kennedy Class I and Class IV situations were used as reference models. The reference datasets were obtained by scanning the models using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM). The following six intraoral scanners were evaluated: Trios 3 (3Shape), iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), Emerald (Planmeca), CEREC Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona), CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), and Virtuo Vivo (Dental Wings). A total of 120 scans from both models were obtained using the six intraoral scanners and divided into two groups based on scanning sequence. Accuracy was evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed (P ≤ .05) for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in the accuracy of digital impressions among intraoral scanners and scanning sequences. The trueness of the Trios scanner and the precision of the Trios, Primescan, and iTero scanners were significantly higher than for the other scanners. The Emerald had the lowest accuracy among the six intraoral scanners tested. Accuracy was affected by scanning sequence when using the Virtuo Vivo, Emerald, Primescan, and iTero.

CONCLUSION

In Kennedy Class I and Class IV partially edentulous cases, it is useful to consider that the intraoral scanner used may affect the accuracy of the digital impression.

Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (α=.05).

RESULTS

The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 µm), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 µm), Omnicam (41.5 µm and 18 µm), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 µm), iTero (70 and 12 µm) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 µm). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right (P=.009).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Primescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations.