Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions

Medina-Sotomayor, Priscilla; Pascual-Moscardó, Agustín; Ruiz‐Camps, Isabel

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202916

Cited by 72 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This means that the accuracy of digital impression as the first step in any digital workflow should fall below that range in terms of marginal discrepancy. The results of this study showed that the accuracy of the 3Shape TRIOS 3 scanner, regardless of scanning resolution, falls within clinically accepted limits and is comparable to previously published data that showed a discrepancy that ranged from 6.9 ± 0.9 µm to 119 ± 48 µm [4,9,[16][17][18][19][20]. The variation in observed discrepancy values could be due to differences in software and hardware versions, different materials scanned, operator discrepancies, differences in scanning strategies, or the span length of the scan.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…In an in vitro study, Müller et al found that changing the directional sequence of scanning did not impact the accuracy of a full-arch digital impression using the 3Shape TRIOS Pod scanner [21]. Furthermore, Medina-Sotomayor et al explored how differences in scanning direction affected the accuracy of digital impressions using four different IOS and found no significant difference among scanning systems [16]. It is important to note, however, that scanning strategies based on the sequence in which a tooth surface is scanned could be utilized by other intraoral scanning systems, thus allowing for a comparison between scanners to be made.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Chiu

Chen

Hayashi

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advancement of intraoral scanners has allowed for more efficient workflow in the dental clinical setting. However, limited data exist regarding the accuracy of the digital impressions produced with various scanner settings and scanning approaches. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions at the crown preparation margin using different scanning resolutions of a specific intraoral scanner system. An all-ceramic crown preparation of a mandibular first molar was constructed in a typodont, and a scan (n = 3) was created with an industrial-grade laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) as the control. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) under three settings—high resolution (HR), standard resolution (SR), and combined resolution (SHR). Comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed with Geomagic Control X software to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the control scan along the preparation finish line. The scan time and number of images captured per scan were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and Dunnett’s T3 test (α = 0.05). Significant differences were observed for scan time and for number of images captured among scan resolution settings (α < 0.05). The scan time for the SR group was, on average, 34.2 s less than the SHR group and 46.5 s less than the HR group. For discrepancy on the finish line, no significant differences were observed among scanning resolutions (HR: 31.5 ± 5.5 μm, SHR: 33.2 ± 3.7 μm, SR: 33.6 ± 3.1 μm). Significant differences in discrepancy were observed among tooth surfaces, with the distal surface showing the highest discrepancies. In conclusion, the resolution of the intra-oral scanner is primarily defined by the system hardware and optimized for default scans. A software high-resolution mode that obtains more data over a longer time may not necessarily benefit the scan accuracy, while the tooth preparation and surface parameters do affect the accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Chiu

Chen

Hayashi

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apart from hardware research, manufacturers make significant investments in performing software R&D to continually improve the accuracy of IOS (both trueness and precision), which can also be experienced by users after a version update [27,42]. Furthermore, many factors can influence accuracies such as scanning pattern [5,43,44] or substrate reflectance [29,30] software settings and upgraded versions [6,42]. Accuracy studies must be reevaluated from time to time due to this constant development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Backgrounds: Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems. Methods: Digital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model. Results: The deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53 ± 2 μm) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156 ± 8 μm) and CS 3600 (365 ± 29 μm), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531 ± 26 μm), Element 2 (246 ± 11 μm), Emerald (317 ± 13 μm), Omnicam (174 ± 11 μm), Planscan (903 ± 49 μm). Conclusions: The physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement.

show abstract

“…The scanning strategy which might shows the more accurate results were determined according to information obtained from the literature. One study indicated the importance of scanning strategies, and the effects of scanning strategy on the impression accuracy were examined; it was found that scanning strategy that started from occlusal-palatal to opposite arch and then returned from buccal side gave better results [18].…”

Section: E918529-5mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Precision of Different Intraoral Scanner-Computer Aided Design (CAD) Software Combinations in Digital Dentistry

Erozan¹,

Ozan²

2020

Med Sci Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of correlation between intraoral scanners and computer aided design (CAD) software programs used during scanning and designing phases of digital dentistry. In the present study, CAD software programs that accept data in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) and proprietary format have been evaluated and data loss has been examined in the scanned data. Material/Methods: A single unit crown preparation was conducted for maxillary right first molar on a fully dentulous model. The prepared tooth was scanned with a high precision industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80) and the reference digital model was obtained. The dental model was further scanned 10 times using 3 different intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam AC, TRIOS 3 Color Pod, and Aadva IOS 100). The data obtained from the reference scanner and intraoral scanners were transferred to different CAD programs (CEREC inLab, TRIOS Design Studio, Exocad) and digital crowns were designed for each scanned data-CAD combination. After that, the data losses that occurred between these transfers were evaluated by superimposition technique in a special software (VR Mesh v7.5) (a=0.05). Results: Among the all combinations of scanner and software, Omnicam AC-InLab was determined to be the most precise combination through the full digital workflow since the Omnicam AC-Exocad combination showed the highest deviations. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it was determined that the combinations of scanners and associated CAD programs yielded more accurate results, and data loss was revealed when the scanned data converted from the proprietary format to the STL format.

show abstract

Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions

Cited by 72 publications

References 23 publications

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

Evaluation of the Precision of Different Intraoral Scanner-Computer Aided Design (CAD) Software Combinations in Digital Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About