Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners

Camcı, Hasan; Salmanpour, Farhad

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.03.022

Cited by 28 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the literature reported, to measure scans accuracy, the data collected (.stl files) of both complete arch of each patient were imported into surface-matching software Geomagic X Control (3D Systems Inc, Rock Hill, SC) [17][18][19]. Each scan was superimposed with the scanned stone cast (162 superimpositions) using first the software's initial matching algorithm tool (A.V.)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The purpose of the present in vivo study was to compare the accuracy, in terms of trueness, between full-arch digital impressions of different intraoral scanning systems, using as a reference the ideality of the conventional impression technique. Methods Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) two-step technique impressions of 27 subjects were taken, and the stone casts were scanned using desktop scanners R500 3Shape. For each arch, in vivo scans were taken with intraoral scanners Carestream CS3600, CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3Shape. All the files were compared, superimposing them on the reference model to calculate the total 3D and 2D deviations. The efficiency of the digital and conventional workflows was evaluated by measuring the work time in minutes. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (R Core Team 2020) with a p-value < 0.05. Results The three intraoral scanners differed from the PVS impression by differences of the order of 100–200 µm, and there was a trend of greater imprecision in the molar area in both dental arches. In comparison with PVS technique, CEREC tended to reduce the size of the impression, Trios presented the trend of greater precision, and Carestream showed minor differences the transversal distance. The areas of greatest discrepancy both in excess and in defect with respect to the PVS impression were the molar areas and incisal margins. Trios 3Shape recorded the shortest times and therefore with a more performing speed. Conclusion The Trios 3Shape was found to be the most accurate single-tooth scanner, while the Carestream CS 3600 showed better inter-arch diameter performance compared to PVS impressions. The 3D and 2D analyses showed a trend of greater distortion of the impressions compared to the conventional one in the molar region.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The presence of humidity on the surface being digitized can reduce intraoral scanning accuracy 15,16 . The light reflected from the wet tooth surface is refracted by the effect of water on the surface, which can reduce the performance of the IOSs 16 …”

Section: Patient Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Wetness The presence of humidity on the intraoral tissues being digitized Wetness difficult the digitizing procedure reducing intraoral scanning accuracy. 15,16 Existing restorations Presence of restorations on the teeth being scanned Scanning accuracy discrepancies have been reported depending on the restorative materials being digitized, including material type, translucency, and surface finishing. [17][18][19][20] Surface characteristics Tooth preparation geometry including location of the pulpal and gingival floors, as well as position of the tooth preparation finish line…”

Section: Interdental Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of humidity on the surface being digitized can reduce intraoral scanning accuracy. 15,16 The light reflected from the wet tooth surface is refracted by the effect of water on the surface, which can reduce the performance of the IOSs. 16 In a laboratory study, authors evaluated the influence of liquid on the surface being digitized (dry, presence of saliva or ultra-pure water, and blow-dried with a three-way syringe) on the scanning accuracy of complete-arch intraoral digital scans captured by using two IOSs (Trios 3 from 3Shape A/S and Primescan from Dentsply Sirona).…”

Section: Wetnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2—Patient factors

Revilla‐León

Kois

2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To describe the factors related to patient intraoral conditions that impact the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these influencing factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision-making and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.Overview: Variables related to intraoral conditions of the patient that can influence the scanning accuracy of IOSs include tooth type, presence of interdental spaces, arch width variations, palate characteristics, wetness, existing restorations, characteristics of the surface being digitized, edentulous areas, interimplant distance, position, angulation, and depth of existing implants, and implant scan body selection. Conclusions:The knowledge and understanding of the patient's intraoral conditions that can impact the scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

show abstract

“…Post-treatment tooth movement evaluation is generally performed using cephalometric x-rays [ 3 ], panoramic radiographs [ 7 ], or plaster models [ 8 ]. In recent years, the use of three-dimensional digital models as an alternative to traditional methods has become widespread in the assessment of tooth movements [ 9 , 10 ]. A number of studies have reported that digital models show high accuracy and repeatability in orthodontic model analysis [ 11 , 12 ].…”

Section: Introduction and Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three-dimensional assessment of two different canine retraction techniques: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial

Akın

Camcı

2021

Prog Orthod.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The aim of this split-mouth trial was to compare power-arm sliding (PAS) and direct sliding (DS) canine retraction mechanics in terms of speed, rotation, angulation, and anchorage loss. Methods Thirty-six class II division 1 patients (20 females, 16 males; mean age, 16.94 ± 3.23) requiring upper first premolar extraction were included in the study. Miniscrews were used as anchorage units, and a retraction force of 150 gr was applied from the power arm on one side and from the bracket on the opposite side by using elastomeric chains. Randomization was achieved by block randomization with a 1:1 allocation ratio either to the right or the left with allocations concealed in opaque, sealed envelopes. Digital models were acquired using an intraoral scanner at the beginning of the retraction (T0), the first month (T1), the second month (T2), and the third month (T3). Before the scans, the archwire was removed, and custom metal jigs were inserted into the vertical slot of the canine brackets to evaluate the canine angulation. The digital models of each patient were separately superimposed with the local best-fit algorithm, and the retraction rate, angulation, rotation, and anchorage loss were measured. The digital measurements were performed using the Geomagic Control X software. Results The DS technique’s total retraction rate was higher than that of the PAS technique (2.09 and 1.57, respectively, p = .002). There was, however, no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of angulation, rotation, and anchorage loss. A negative correlation was observed between the retraction rate and age, but it was not statistically significant. No significant difference was observed between the retraction rates of female and male participants in either retraction technique. Conclusions For both orthodontists and patients, the DS technique is simpler and more convenient; thus, it is the preferred method for canine retraction. Trial registration The trial was not registered. Protocol The protocol was not published before the trial commencement.

show abstract

Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners

Cited by 28 publications

References 26 publications

Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study

Comparative analysis of intraoral scanners accuracy using 3D software: an in vivo study

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2—Patient factors

Three-dimensional assessment of two different canine retraction techniques: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About