Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws

Patzelt, Sebastian B. M.; Vonau, Sebastian; Stampf, Susanne; Att, Wael

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209

Cited by 198 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

177

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, only a few studies have dealt with the use of IOS in oral implantology [7, 9, 10, 27, 28], and still there is no sufficient evidence on the possibility of using IOS to take impressions for long-span restorations [38–40], or in the case of fully edentulous patients [25, 39]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Imburgia¹,

Logozzo

Hauschild³

et al. 2017

BMC Oral Health

292

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUntil now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants.MethodsTwo gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out.ResultsIn the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (45.8 ± 1.6μm), followed by Trios3® (50.2 ± 2.5μm), Omnicam® (58.8 ± 1.6μm) and TrueDefinition® (61.4 ± 3.0μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®. In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (60.6 ± 11.7μm), followed by Omnicam® (66.4 ± 3.9μm), Trios3® (67.2 ± 6.9μm) and TrueDefinition® (106.4 ± 23.1μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (19.5 ± 3.1μm), followed by Trios3® (24.5 ± 3.7μm), CS3600® (24.8 ± 4.6μm) and Omnicam® (26.3 ± 1.5μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (31.5 ± 9.8μm), followed by Omnicam® (57.2 ± 9.1μm), CS3600® (65.5 ± 16.7μm) and TrueDefinition® (75.3 ± 43.8μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3®.ConclusionsSignificant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have important clinical implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Imburgia¹,

Logozzo

Hauschild³

et al. 2017

BMC Oral Health

292

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their further study, it was reported that the deviations in accuracy and precision for CEREC Bluecam, iTero, Lava COS and Omnicam were up to 29.4 to 44.9 µm um and 19.5 to 63.0 µm, respectively,8 which leads to a conclusion that these IOSs could be applied to full mouth scan cases within the limitations of in-vitro study. Patzelt et al also reported studies on the accuracy of full arch scan and fully edentulous jaw digitization 910. As the intraoral scanner is a handheld device, the image stitching error from the uneven and abrupt movement of scanner wand might cause the deformation of scan data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are various studies on these. In particular, the former internal gap study includes Seelbach et al's studyon the single crown and Schaefer et al's on the partial crown while the latter image superposition study includes Nedelcu et al's study on simplified and standardized scan body, Ender et al's on full arch, and Patzelt et al's on edentulous jaws 235678910. Papaspyridakos and Wismeijer reported the investigation on the accuracy of digital implant impressions with IOS 111213.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Park

2016

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs).MATERIALS AND METHODSThe phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05).RESULTSThe average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups.CONCLUSIONExcept for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.

show abstract

“…Conventional impressions are needed in all systems, because intraoral scanning of the mucosa is currently not clinically feasible because of high inaccuracy. 11 Enhancements are, furthermore, necessary for the valid digital recording of patients' functional movements. In this context, the individual custom trays of the Wieland Dental Digital denture system might be particularly appealing compared with the stock trays or customized stock trays of the other systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of two digital techniques for the fabrication of complete removable dental prostheses: A pilot clinical study

Schwindling

Stober

2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws

Cited by 198 publications

References 17 publications

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

A comparison of two digital techniques for the fabrication of complete removable dental prostheses: A pilot clinical study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About