Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method

Nedelcu, Robert; Olsson, Pontus; Nyström, Ingela; Rydén, Jesper; Thor, Andreas

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006

Cited by 203 publications

(162 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…e best-fit algorithm of the analysis software was applied for comparison. Positive and negative discrepancies were shown by the software as in a coloured map [22]. e discrepancy values were calculated from RMS (Root Mean Square) values of 10 superimposition data of each scanner.…”

Section: Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Song

Kim

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim. is study aims to evaluate the accuracy of scanned images of 4 clinically used intraoral scanners (CS3600, i500, Trios3, Omnicam) when scanning the surface of full arch models with various kinds of orthodontic brackets in the presence of artificial saliva. Materials and Methods. Four study models were prepared; bonded with ceramic, metal, and resin brackets, respectively, and without brackets. Reference images were taken by scanning the models with an industrial scanner. Study models were then applied with an artificial saliva and scanned 10 times, respectively, with the above 4 intraoral scanners. All images were converted to STL file format and analyzed with 3D analysis software. By superimposing with the reference images, mean maximum discrepancy values and mean discrepancy values were collected and compared. For statistical analysis, two-way ANOVA was used. Results. Omnicam (1.247 ± 0.255) showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. CS3600 (0.758 ± 0.170), Trios3 (0.854 ± 0.166), and i500 (0.975 ± 0.172) performed relatively favourably. Resin (1.119 ± 0.255) and metal (1.086 ± 0.132) brackets showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. Nonbracket (0.776 ± 0.250) and ceramic bracket (0.853 ± 0.269) models generally showed lower mean maximum discrepancy values in studied scanners. In mean discrepancy values, the difference between scanners was not statistically significant whereas among brackets, resin bracketed models (0.093 ± 0.142) showed the highest value. Conclusion. Intraoral scanners and brackets had significant influences on the scanned images with application of artificial saliva on the study models. It may be expected to have similar outcomes in an intraoral environment. Some data showed the discrepancy values up to about 1.5 mm that would require more caution in using intraoral scanners for production of detailed appliances and records.

show abstract

Section: Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Song

Kim

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is the reason why, in this study, the prepared models were designed for quadrants. The scanner used in the study has been shown to have a high accuracy for scans of quadrants . In this study, isthmus width rather than perimeter or volume of the cavity preparation was used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluorescence‐aided selective removal of resin‐based composite restorative materials: An in vitro comparative study

Kiran

Chapman

Tennant

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: During removal of resin-based composite (RBC) restorations, removal of adjacent sound tooth structure can easily occur. The aim of the study was to compare the fluorescence-aided identification of restorations (FAIR) method with the conventional method (CM) using white light illumination for the selective removal of toothcolored RBC restorations. Materials and Methods:Sixty extracted teeth were used to prepare 15 sets of models, each with four teeth. Cavities were prepared in each tooth and a digital three-dimensional scan of each model was taken in STL format. The teeth were then restored with either Admira Fusion, GRADIA DIRECT X, or TPH Spectra LV (20 teeth for each). Five dentists removed the restorations from sets of 12 teeth (six each using FAIR, and six using CM). From a postoperative scan, changes in intercuspal cavity width were measured using the 3D tool CAD software.Results: Using FAIR, changes in cavity width were not significant (P = .17), and there was no significant interoperator variance (P = .3). In contrast, when using CM, there was a significant increase in cavity width (P = .0025), and considerable interoperator variance (P = .03). FAIR allowed faster completion of the task of restoration removal (average time 100.23 seconds, vs 165.13 seconds from CM). Conclusion:The FAIR method facilitates the selective removal of tooth-colored RBC restorations, with reduced time and less inadvertent removal of sound tooth structure.Clinical Significance: By enhancing the differentiation between the restorative material and adjacent tooth structure, the FAIR method facilitates removal of toothcolored restorations, while concurrently prevents unnecessary removal of healthy tooth structure. The same approach may have applications for removal of resin-based materials such as resin cements under restorations, resin fissure sealants, and orthodontic brackets bonding resins. K E Y W O R D S dental composite, fluorescence, lasers, removal, restoration replacement

show abstract

“…The widely used Trios intra-oral scanning device uses advanced parallel confocal imaging. In principle, this device [43][44][45][46] captures sets of 2D images of the oral cavity and then combines them into a spatial model using optical sectioning technology [41] and geometrical modelling. STL data exported from the Trios intra-oral scanner into the Matlab and Comsol computational environments were used to construct and analyze digital models of the lower and upper dental arches.…”

Section: Scanning Technologies In Spatial Model Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Augmented Reality Implementations in Stomatology

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Augmented reality has a wide range of applications in many areas that can extend the study of real objects into the digital world, including stomatology. Real dental objects that were previously examined using their plaster casts are often replaced by their digital models or three-dimensional (3D) prints in the cyber-physical world. This paper reviews a selection of digital methods that have been applied in dentistry, including the use of intra-oral scanning technology for data acquisition and evaluation of fundamental features of dental arches. The methodology includes the use of digital filters and morphological operations for spatial objects analysis, their registration, and evaluation of changes during the treatment of specific disorders. The results include 3D models of selected dental arch objects, which allow a comparison of their shape and position during repeated observations. The proposed methods present digital alternatives to the use of plaster casts for semiautomatic evaluation of dental arch measures. This paper describes some of the advantages of 3D digital technology replacing real world elements and plaster cast dental models in many areas of classical stomatology.

show abstract

Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method

Abstract: Intraoral scanners can be used as a replacement for conventional impressions when restoring up to ten units without extended edentulous spans.

Cited by 203 publications

References 14 publications

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Fluorescence‐aided selective removal of resin‐based composite restorative materials: An in vitro comparative study

Augmented Reality Implementations in Stomatology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About