Effect of Different Software Programs on the Accuracy of Dental Scanner Using Three-Dimensional Analysis

Abstract

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the 3D analysis for complete arch, half arch, and tooth preparation region by using four analysis software programs. The CAD reference model (CRM; N = 1 per region) and CAD test models (CTMs; N = 20 per software) of complete arch, half arch, and tooth preparation were obtained by using scanners. For both CRM and CTMs, mesh data other than the same area were deleted. For 3D analysis, four analysis software programs (Geomagic control X, GOM Inspect, Cloudcompare, and Materialise 3-matic) were used in the alignment of CRM and CTMs as well as in the 3D comparison. Root mean square (RMS) was regarded as the result of the 3D comparison. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests were performed for statistical comparison of four analysis software programs (α = 0.05). In half-arch and tooth preparation region, the four analysis software programs showed a significant difference in RMS values (p < 0.001), but in complete-arch region, no significant difference was found among the four software programs (p = 0.139). As the area of the virtual cast for 3D analysis becomes smaller, variable results are obtained depending on the software program used, and the difference in results among software programs are not considered in the 3D analysis for complete-arch region.

Effect of Printing Layer Thickness on the Trueness and Margin Quality of 3D-Printed Interim Dental Crowns

“…Calculating RMS differences is the most commonly applied trueness analysis in digital dentistry [42]. However, the effect of different software programs to calculate RMS values between corresponding datasets is not clear [43][44][45]. The influence of the build angle on the fabrication of 3D-printed crowns has been shown in various studies [14,18,25,26,29].…”

Influence of 3D analysis software on measured deviations of CAD-CAM resin crowns from virtual design file: An in-vitro study

“…The number of studies using different software to analyze surface data, and their ability to analyze deviations between corresponding data sets is limited. Son et al [12] evaluated four different software while analyzing deviations between the test and the reference data sets for full-arches, half-arches, and a single crown tooth preparation. The deviations found with different software were significantly different for the half-arch and the preparation scans.…”

“…In this method, the CAD file of the test model is superimposed over the reference model through different methods [10]; best-fit alignment, which allows a fast and accurate analysis, is a commonly used superimposition method [11]. This method is based on iterative closest point algorithm that omits any operator-based decisions and calculates the mean distance between the corresponding points on the test scan and the reference scan by using the root mean square (RMS) [12]. The analyses by using the metrology-grade software require expertise, and the software and the service provided for analysis can be costly.…”

“…The software used may affect the 3D analysis [13] as alignment algorithms and deviation measurements vary [12]. However, the number of studies, which compared 3D analysis software, are limited [12,14].…”

“…The software used may affect the 3D analysis [13] as alignment algorithms and deviation measurements vary [12]. However, the number of studies, which compared 3D analysis software, are limited [12,14]. The authors are unaware of a study neither focusing on the reliability of the new nonmetrology-grade software nor comparing it with a ISO-12836 recommended [15] and commonly used metrology-grade inspection software (Geomagic Control X v.2018.1.1; 3D Systems, Morrisville, NC, USA).…”