Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) can distort dentition, and additional imaging is often required. A plaster model to help digitize dental images has been widely used in clinical practice, but there are some inconveniences such as complexity of the process and the risk of damage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential for improving dentition imaging with CBCT scans using an intraoral scanner instead of a plaster model. The study used laser model-scanned images of plaster models, imaging from two intraoral scanners, and CBCT images from 20 patients aged 12-18 years. CS 3600 (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, USA) and i700 (Medit, Seoul, Korea) were used as intraoral scanners. The full arch was scanned at once or in three sections using intraoral scanners. The segmented scans were merged to obtain full-arch images. With i700, full-arch images were additionally acquired using its “smart stich” function. The virtual skull-dentition hybrid images obtained from intraoral scanners were superimposed with images obtained using a plaster cast. The difference and distance of coordinate values at each reference point were measured. The average distances from the images obtained with the plaster cast were smaller than 0.39 mm, which is the voxel size of CBCT. Scanning the complete or partial arch using CS 3600 or i700 satisfactorily complemented the CBCT when compared to the plaster model. The virtual skull-dentition hybrid image obtained from intraoral scanners will be clinically useful, especially for patients and surgeons who have difficulty in scanning the complete arch at once.

Distortion of dentition may occur in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans due to artifacts, and further imaging is frequently required to produce digital twins. The use of a plaster model is common; however, it has certain drawbacks. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of different digital dentition models over that of plaster casts. Plaster models, alginate impressions, intraoral scan (IOS) images, and CBCT images of 20 patients were obtained. The desktop model scanner was used to scan the alginate impression twice, five minutes and two hours after impression-making. Using an IOS, the full arch was scanned in segments using CS 3600 and simultaneously with i700 wireless. The digital twins obtained from the alginate impression and IOS were superimposed with those obtained from the plaster cast. The differences and distances at each reference point were measured. Scans of alginate impressions after two hours showed the greatest discrepancies, but these were all less than the CBCT voxel size of 0.39 mm. Alginate impression scans and IOS are suitable supplements to CBCT compared to the plaster model. Accuracy can be improved by scanning the alginate impression within five minutes or by intraoral scanning of the entire arch with segmentation.

Additional dentition images are needed because the dentitions are distorted in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) due to streak artifacts and non-uniformity of the x-ray beam. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of improving the dentition image of CBCT scan with intraoral scanner instead of plaster models. Maxilla images from plaster models, two intraoral scanners, and CBCT of 20 patients aged 12 to 18 were used in this study. With one of the intraoral scanners, the full arch was scanned by three segments and combined into a complete full arch. Virtual skull-dentition hybrid images from intraoral scanners were superimposed with the images from plaster models to evaluate the coordinate value difference and distance at reference points. The results showed that the coordinate value difference and distance were smallest with segmented intraoral scan, which showed only 2 ㎛ distance. Intraoral scan may provide good dentition images for virtual skull-dentition images.