The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental three-dimensional (3D) scanners according to the types of teeth. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained by scanning the reference typodont model using a high-precision industrial scanner (Solutionix C500, MEDIT). In addition, a CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using seven types of dental 3D scanners (desktop scanners (E1 and DOF Freedom HD) and intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500)). The 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X, 3DSystems) was used to segment the CRM according to the types of teeth and to superimpose the CTM based on the segmented teeth. The 3D accuracy of the scanner was then analyzed according to the types of teeth. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences according to the types of teeth in statistical analysis, and the Tukey HSD test was used for post hoc testing (α = 0.05). Both desktop and intraoral scanners showed significant differences in accuracy according to the types of teeth (P < 0.001), and the accuracy of intraoral scanners tended to get worse from anterior to posterior. Therefore, when scanning a complete arch using an intraoral scanner, the clinician should consider the tendency for the accuracy to decrease from anterior to posterior.

The purpose of this study was to measure and correlate the fitness and trueness of a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) fabricated using two digital workflows. The 3-unit FDPs were fabricated using two digital workflows (N = 15). The digital workflows were divided into chairside (closed type) and in-lab (open type) groups. The scanning, computer-aided design (CAD), and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) processes were conducted with 3shape E1 scanner, exocad CAD software, and DDS EZIS HM, respectively, in the in-lab group; and with CEREC omnicam intraoral scanner, CEREC CAD software, and CEREC MC XL, respectively, in the chairside group. The fitness of the fabricated 3-unit FDPs was evaluated by scanning the silicone replica of the cement space and analyzing the thickness of the silicone replica in the three-dimensional (3D) inspection software (Geomagic control X). The trueness of the milling unit was analyzed by 3D analysis of the CAD reference model, which is the design file of the 3-unit FDP, and the CAD test model, which is the scanned file of the 3-unit FDP. In the statistical analysis, comparison of the two groups was conducted by Mann–Whitney U test, and the correlation between the fitness and trueness was conducted by Pearson correlation test (α = 0.05). The marginal and internal fit were significantly lower in the in-lab group at all measurement positions (p < 0.001). The trueness of the milling unit was significantly higher in the in-lab group compared to the chairside group (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between the trueness and internal fit (correlation coefficient = 0.621) in the in-lab group (p = 0.013). The use of appropriate equipment in an in-lab (open type) digital workflow enables a better fabrication of 3-unit FDPs than a chairside (closed type) digital workflow, and poor trueness on the inner surface of the crown adversely affects the internal fit.

This study set out to compare the three-dimensional (3D) trueness of crowns produced from three types of lithium disilicate blocks. The working model was digitized, and single crowns (maxillary left second molar) were designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software. To produce a crown design model (CDM), a crown design file was extracted from the CAD software. In addition, using the CDM file and a milling machine (N = 20), three types of lithium disilicate blocks (e.max CAD, HASS Rosetta, and VITA Suprinity) were processed. To produce a crown scan model (CSM), the inner surface of each fabricated crown was digitized using a touch-probe scanner. In addition, using 3D inspection software, the CDM was partitioned (into marginal, axis, angular, and occlusal regions), the CDM and CSM were overlapped, and a 3D analysis was conducted. A Kruskal–Wallis test (α = 0.05) was conducted with all-segmented teeth with the root mean square (RMS), and they were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U-test and the Bonferroni correction method as a post hoc test. There was a significant difference in the trueness of the crowns according to the type of lithium disilicate block (p < 0.001). The overall RMS value was at a maximum for e.max (42.9 ± 4.4 µm), followed by HASS (30.1 ± 9.0 µm) and then VITA (27.3 ± 7.9 µm). However, there was no significant difference between HASS and VITA (p = 0.541). There were significant differences in all regions inside the crown (p < 0.001). There was a significantly high trueness in the angular region inside the crown (p < 0.001). A correction could thus be applied in the CAD process, considering the differences in the trueness by the type of lithium disilicate block. In addition, to attain a crown with an excellent fit, it is necessary to provide a larger setting space for the angular region during the CAD process.

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of five different intraoral scanners and two different laboratory scanners for a complete arch. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained using industrial scanners. A CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using five types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500) and two types of laboratory scanners (3shape E1 and DOF) (N = 20). In addition, the CRM and CTM were superimposed using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems) and 3D analysis was performed. In the 3D analysis, the accuracy was measured by the type of tooth, the anterior and posterior region, and the overall region. As for the statistical analysis of the accuracy, the differences were confirmed using the Kruskal–Wallis H test (α = 0.05). Also, the differences between the groups were analyzed by post-hoc tests including Mann–Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction method (α = 0.0017). There was a significant difference in the scanning accuracy of the complete arch according to the type of scanner (P < 0.001). The i500 Group showed the lowest accuracy (143 ± 69.6 µm), while the 3Shape E1 Group was the most accurate (14.3 ± 0.3 µm). Also, the accuracy was lower in the posterior region than in the anterior region in all types of scanners (P < 0.001). Scanning accuracy of the complete arch differed depending on the type of scanner. While three types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios3) can be recommended for scanning of a complete arch, the two remaining types of intraoral scanners (Trios2 and i500) cannot be recommended.

This study aims to evaluate the fitness, surface microhardness, and trueness of crowns fabricated from three types of dental ceramic blocks (HASS Rosetta, IPS e.max CAD, and VITA Suprinity) and analyze the correlations between them. A crown was first designed in computer-aided design (CAD) software. To create a crown designed model (CDM), the design file was extracted from the CAD software, and a lithium disilicate block was processed from the file with a milling machine. To create a crown scanned model (CSM), the inside of the fabricated crown was digitized using a contact scanner. Using three-dimensional (3D) inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems), the CDM and CSM were then superimposed, and their 3D trueness was analyzed. To measure the surface microhardness of the blocks, the specimens were polished and subjected to the Vickers hardness test. The fitness of the fabricated crowns was evaluated by applying a modified silicone replica technique. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the correlations between trueness, surface microhardness, and fitness. In addition, the significance of differences between the three types of dental ceramic blocks was analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Significant differences in the trueness, surface microhardness, and marginal fit were observed between ceramic blocks of different types. There were also positive correlations between trueness, surface microhardness, marginal fit, and internal fit. While the marginal fit of crowns fabricated from each of the three types of ceramic blocks was in the clinically permitted range (<120 µm), there were differences in the trueness and surface microhardness, depending on the type of block. However, crowns fabricated from each of the three materials have surface microhardness that is clinically applicable.