Effect of the Inter-Tooth Distance and Proximal Axial Wall Height of Prepared Teeth on the Scanning Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners

This study aimed to analyze the effect of the height of the proximal axial wall of the prepared tooth and the distance between the adjacent tooth and the prepared tooth on the scan accuracy of intraoral scanners. Ten working casts with maxillary first molars prepared to receive zirconia crowns were randomly obtained from a dental clinic. Each of the 10 casts was scanned using two intraoral scanners (i700; MEDIT and CS3600; Carestream; computer-aided design [CAD] test model, CTM; N = 15 per working cast) 15 times per scanner. Individual dies of the prepared teeth were fabricated, and high-precision scan data were acquired using a laboratory scanner (CAD reference model, CRM; N = 1). CTMs were aligned relative to the prepared tooth of CRMs by using three-dimensional inspection software (Ver 2018.1.0; Control X; 3D Systems). Data were statistically analyzed using an independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance for between-group comparisons (α = 0.05). The inaccuracy in the proximal regions (mesial or distal) of the prepared tooth was higher than that in the buccal and lingual regions (p < 0.05). The scan accuracy was not correlated with the variables when the distance between the adjacent tooth and the prepared tooth was ≥2.0 mm and the height of the proximal axial wall of the prepared tooth was <3.0 mm (p > 0.05). Therefore, an excellent scan accuracy can be obtained using an intraoral scanner when the distance between the adjacent tooth and the prepared tooth is ≥2.0 mm and the proximal axial wall height of the prepared tooth is <3.0 mm.

Effect of using scan body accessories and inter-implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To introduce a novel design for scan body accessory parts that are reusable, easy to attach and detach without permanent change of the scan body, and can be used with different inter-implant distances to enhance the accuracy of complete arch implant scans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) model with a soft tissue replica was fabricated with four implant analogs located at tooth positions 17, 13, 22, and 27 with 18, 25, and 30 mm inter-implant distances. Four scan bodies (SBs) were attached to the implants. The model was scanned with a laboratory scanner to be used as a reference scan. A total of 40 scans were made with the same intraoral scanner and they were divided equally into two groups. Group A: Complete arch implant scans without scan body accessories (n = 20), and Group B: Complete arch implant scans with scan body accessories (n = 20). Intraoral scans were exported and superimposed on the reference scan using reverse engineering inspection software to be evaluated for 3D deviations, angular deviations, and linear deviations. Statistical analysis was performed with student t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures followed by post hoc adjusted Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05.

RESULTS

The scan body accessories decreased both the 3D and linear deviations, with a statistically significant difference at SB4 for the 3D deviation (P = 0.043) and the linear inter-implant discrepancies between SB1-SB2 and SB3-SB4 (P = 0.029 and < 0.001), respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference in angular deviation between the study groups. Implant positions had significant differences within each group.

CONCLUSIONS

 A significant improvement in the accuracy of the complete arch implant digital impression was achieved by using the scan body accessories, particularly in reducing the 3D and linear deviations at the most distant implant positions.

Influence of interdental spaces and the palate on the accuracy of maxillary scans acquired using different intraoral scanners

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of interdental spaces and scanning the palate on the accuracy of maxillary scans acquired using three intraoral scanners (IOSs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A virtual completely dentate maxillary cast without interdental spaces was obtained and modified to create 1, 2, and 3 mm of interdental spacing between the anterior teeth. These three files (reference standard tessellation language files) were used to print three reference casts. The reference casts were scanned using three IOSs: TRIOS4, iTero Element 5D, and Aoralscan2. Three groups were created based on the interdental spaces: 0, 1, 2, and 3 mm (n = 10). The groups were subdivided into two subgroups: no palate (NP subgroup) and palate (P subgroup). The reference STL files were used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by calculating the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness ranged from 91 to 139 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 23 μm among the subgroups tested. A significant correlation was found between IOS*group (p<0.001) and IOS*subgroup ( p<0.001). Tukey test showed significant trueness differences among the interdental spaces tested (p<0.001). The 1- and 2-mm groups obtained better trueness than the 0- and 3-mm groups (p<0.001). An 11 μm mean trueness discrepancy was measured among the different interdental space groups tested. The P subgroups demonstrated significantly higher trueness when compared to the NP subgroups (p<0.001). The discrepancy between the maxillary scans with and without the palate was 4 μm. Significant precision discrepancies were found (p = 0.008), with the iTero group showing the lowest precision.

CONCLUSION

Interdental spaces and incorporation of the palate on maxillary intraoral scans influenced trueness and precision of the three IOSs tested. However, the scanning discrepancy measured may be of no clinical relevance.

Three-Dimensional Scanning Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Dental Implant Scan Bodies-An Original Study

Background and Objectives: With the increased trend towards digitalization in dentistry, intraoral scanning has, to a certain extent, replaced conventional impressions in particular clinical settings. Trueness and precision are essential traits for optical impressions but have so far been incompletely explored. Materials and Methods: We performed a study to evaluate the differences in the three-dimensional spatial orientations of implant analogs on a stone cast when using an intraoral scanner compared to a dental laboratory scanner. We assessed the deviation of the intraoral scans compared to the laboratory scan for three standardized implant measurement plans and compared these results with control scans of the neighboring natural teeth. Results: We found no statistically significant correlation between the measurements at the scan body level and the landmarks chosen as controls on the neighboring natural teeth (p = 0.198). The values for the implant scans presented wider variation compared to the control scans. The difference between the implant and the control planes ranged from -0.018 mm to +0.267 mm, with a median of -0.011 mm (IQR: -0.001-0.031 mm). While most values fell within a clinically acceptable margin of error of 0.05 mm, 12.5% of the measurements fell outside of this acceptable range and could potentially affect the quality of the resulting prosthetic work. Conclusions: For single-unit implant-supported restorations, intraoral scanning might have enough accuracy. However, the differences that result when scanning with an intraoral scanner may affect the quality of prosthetic work on multiple implants, especially if they are screw-retained. Based on our results, we propose different adaptations of the prosthetic protocol to minimize the potential effect of errors that may occur during the digital workflow.

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).

RESULTS

Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.

Analysis of the Influence of the Geometrical Parameters of the Body Scanner on the Accuracy of Reconstruction of the Human Figure Using the Photogrammetry Technique

This article concerns the research of the HUBO full-body scanner, which includes the analysis and selection of the scanner's geometrical parameters in order to obtain the highest possible accuracy of the reconstruction of a human figure. In the scanner version analyzed in this paper, smartphone cameras are used as sensors. In order to process the collected photos into a 3D model, the photogrammetry technique is applied. As part of the work, dependencies between the geometrical parameters of the scanner are derived, which allows to significantly reduce the number of degrees of freedom in the selection of its geometrical parameters. Based on these dependencies, a numerical analysis is carried out, as a result of which the initial values of the geometrical parameters are pre-selected and distribution of scanner cameras is visualized. As part of the experimental research, the influence of selected scanner parameters on the scanning accuracy is analyzed. For the experimental research, a specially prepared dummy was used instead of the participation of a real human, which allowed to ensure the constancy of the scanned object. The accuracy of the object reconstruction was assessed in relation to the reference 3D model obtained with a scanner of superior measurement uncertainty. On the basis of the conducted research, a method for the selection of the scanner's geometrical parameters was finally verified, leading to the arrangement of cameras around a human, which guarantees high accuracy of the reconstruction. Additionally, to quantify the results, the quality rates were used, taking into account not only the obtained measurement uncertainty of the scanner, but also the processing time and the resulting efficiency.

Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: An In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accuracy of 10 intraoral scanners for single-crown and three-unit preparation models.

METHODS

A maxillary partially edentulous model was fabricated. A dental cast scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) data. Ten intraoral scanners, namely Trios 2 (TR2; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), True Definition (TD; 3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA), CEREC AC Omnicam (OM; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), Organical Scan Oral (OS; R+K, Berlin, Germany), PlanScan (PS; Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland), DWIOP (DW; Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada), Xianlin (XL; Hangzhou Xianlin, Hangzhou, China), DL-100 (DL; Guangzhou Longcheng, Guangzhou, China), Trios 3 (TR3; 3Shape) and i500 (MD; MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea) were used to obtain stereolithography data as test groups. Trueness, precision and surface accuracy were evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software. One tooth with a three-unit preparation for each test group was registered with the reference scan data, and the absolute distance from another tooth was calculated as the absolute accuracy. The data were analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The best trueness, precision and surface accuracy of scanning single crown preparation were recorded with TD (trueness 2.9 μm and precision 1.9 μm) and XL (surface accuracy 20.3 ± 2.9 μm). The best trueness, precision, surface accuracy and absolute accuracy of three-unit preparations were recorded with TD (2.6 μm), XL (1.9 μm), OM (27.1 ± 5.2 μm) and TR3 (79.2 ± 19.6 μm), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in trueness between single- and multiple-unit preparations for any of the intraoral scanners (P > 0.05). A statistically significant difference in the surface accuracy between single and multiple preparations was found for TR2, TD, OM, DW, XL, DL and MD (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The trueness and precision of intraoral scanners for scanning three-unit preparations were nearly the same as those for single-crown preparations; however, with the exception of OS, PS and TR3, the surface accuracy of single-crown preparations was significantly better than that for three-unit preparations.

Effect of cut-out rescan procedures on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner used for digitizing an ear model: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the rescanning of mesh holes of different diameters on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner (IOS) used to digitize an ear model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An ear model was digitized using an intraoral scanner (Medit i500) to obtain a reference mesh. A baseline experimental scan was created by editing a duplicate of the reference mesh using the cut-out tool of the IOS software. Three equal groups were created based on the diameter of the cut-out areas: 2-mm (G1), 5mm (G2), and 8-mm (G3) (n = 15). The cut-out areas were rescanned and a total of 45 digital files were exported. The discrepancy between the reference and the experimental digital scans was measured using the root mean square calculation (RMS). The data were analyzed by a Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

The trueness values ranged from 19.53 to 27.13 μm. There were significant differences in the RMS error values among the groups tested (p<.001) and post hoc multiple comparisons showed significant differences between the G1 and G2 groups (p = .04), G1 and G3 groups (p<.001), and G2 and G3 groups (p = .004). Overall, the precision values ranged from 4.93 to 7.73 μm and significant differences in the RMS values were only found between the G1 and G2 groups (p = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Mesh hole rescanning affected the scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOS tested. The larger the diameter of the mesh holes, the less the trueness of the IOS tested. The precision values seemed to be less affected compared with the trueness by the cut-out and rescanning procedures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.