A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions

Abstract

BackgroundIntraoral scanners are devices for capturing digital impressions in dentistry. Until now, several in vitro studies have assessed the trueness of digital impressions, but in vivo studies are missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to introduce a new method to assess trueness of intraoral scanners and digital impressions in an in vivo clinical set-up.MethodsA digital impression using an intraoral scanner (Trios® 3 Cart wired, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and a conventional alginate impression (Cavex Impressional®, Cavex, Haarlem, the Netherlands) as clinical reference were made for two patients assigned for full mouth extraction. A total of 30 teeth were collected upon surgery after impressions making. The gypsum model created from conventional impression and extracted teeth were then scanned in a lab scanner (Activity 885®, SmartOptics, Bochum, Germany). Digital model of the intraoral scanner (DM), digital model of the conventional gypsum cast (CM) and those of the extracted natural teeth (NT) were imported to a reverse engineering software (3-matic®, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) in which the three models were registered then DM and CM were compared to their corresponding teeth in NT by distance map calculations.ResultsDM had statistically insignificant better trueness when compared to CM for total dataset (p = 0.15), statistically insignificant better trueness for CM when mandibular arches analyzed alone (p = 0.56), while a significantly better DM trueness (p = 0.013) was found when only maxillary arches were compared.ConclusionsOur results show that digital impression technique is clinically as good as or better than the current reference standard for study models of orthognathic surgery patients.

Trueness of cone beam computed tomography versus intra‐oral scanner derived three‐dimensional digital models: An ex vivo study

“…Our finding related to the mean discrepancy of IOS was in accordance with a recent in vivo study which also evaluated the trueness of Trios IOS (Albdour et al, ). In the following study, CBCT‐derived models had improved trueness but both CBCT and IOS devices have certain pros and cons.…”

“…Trueness represents the closeness of the measurement to the accepted reference value, whereas precision represents the closeness of repeated measurement of the same object (Standardization I O f, ). According to the available evidence, accuracy of IOS‐derived digital models is clinically acceptable and comparable to that of conventional models (Albdour et al, ; Hack, ; Nedelcu, Olsson, Nyström, Rydén, & Thor, ; Rossini, Parrini, Castroflorio, Deregibus, & Debernardi, ). The trueness of an IOS can be assessed by registering the 3D images on a reference model obtained by a high‐resolution industrial optical scanner, articulated arm, coordinate measuring machine, or micro‐computed tomography (µCT) (Ahlholm, Sipilä, Vallittu, Jakonen, & Kotiranta, ; Aragón, Pontes, Bichara, Flores‐Mir, & Normando, ; Chochlidakis et al, ; Goracci, Franchi, Vichi, & Ferrari, ; Imburgia et al, ; Yang, Lv, Liu, Si, & Feng, ).…”

Full Digital Workflow for the Treatment of an Edentulous Patient with Guided Surgery, Immediate Loading and 3D-Printed Hybrid Prosthesis: The BARI Technique 2.0. A Case Report

“…In the last years, digital technology has entered our profession, and many procedures have been deeply renovated. The development of intraoral scanners, 3D printers, and Computer-Aided Design-Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) machines with superior performances, as well as the introduction of improved materials, is shifting the paradigm towards a digital workflow [12][13][14]. This paper presents the evolution of the BARI technique (BARI is the capital city of the region where all the authors come from), which permits the transfer of the intermaxillary and occlusal relationships in a digital environment from the complete denture to the implant-supported 3D-printed hybrid prosthesis.…”

Artificial intelligence in fixed implant prosthodontics: a retrospective study of 106 implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns inserted in the posterior jaws of 90 patients

“…In modern digital protocols, the dentist must capture an intraoral scan of the implant scanbody as accurately as possible [6,7], and the technician must carefully perform the replacement of the mesh captured by scanning with the implant library files on which to model [8]; furthermore, implant libraries within the CAD software must not present errors. However, working well in these phases may not be sufficient: in fact, during the extraoral cementation of the customised zirconia abutment on the bonding base, tolerances between the components may cause cementing errors [8,9].…”