Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard

Uhm, Soo Hyuk; Kim, Jae Hong; Jiang, Heng Bo; Woo, Chang Woo; Chang, Moon Jong; Kim, Kyoung Nam; Bae, Ji Myung; Oh, Seunghan

doi:10.4012/dmj.2016-064

Cited by 40 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study showed a significant difference in the accuracy according to the anterior and posterior regions in all eight scanners ( Table 2). Previous studies showed a difference in the accuracy according to the size and shape of the object scanned [2,19]. The accuracy was found to be poor in the posterior region in this study, suggesting that the manufacturer should improve this.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Kang

Lee

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of five different intraoral scanners and two different laboratory scanners for a complete arch. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained using industrial scanners. A CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using five types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500) and two types of laboratory scanners (3shape E1 and DOF) (N = 20). In addition, the CRM and CTM were superimposed using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems) and 3D analysis was performed. In the 3D analysis, the accuracy was measured by the type of tooth, the anterior and posterior region, and the overall region. As for the statistical analysis of the accuracy, the differences were confirmed using the Kruskal–Wallis H test (α = 0.05). Also, the differences between the groups were analyzed by post-hoc tests including Mann–Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction method (α = 0.0017). There was a significant difference in the scanning accuracy of the complete arch according to the type of scanner (P < 0.001). The i500 Group showed the lowest accuracy (143 ± 69.6 µm), while the 3Shape E1 Group was the most accurate (14.3 ± 0.3 µm). Also, the accuracy was lower in the posterior region than in the anterior region in all types of scanners (P < 0.001). Scanning accuracy of the complete arch differed depending on the type of scanner. While three types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios3) can be recommended for scanning of a complete arch, the two remaining types of intraoral scanners (Trios2 and i500) cannot be recommended.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 46%

“…The accuracy of intraoral scanners for a complete arch has been evaluated in many previous studies [3,8,10,[13][14][15][17][18][19]. It was found that the larger the range of scanning, the greater the error, suggesting that the complete arch was inappropriate as the range of intraoral scanning for prosthetic treatment [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Kang

Lee

2019

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An increasing number of dentists are purchasing and implementing intraoral scanners (IOS) for making optical impressions of oral soft and hard tissues as an alternative to traditional impressions, which are generally poorly tolerated by patients [1][2][3]. The area of application previously consisted mostly of quadrant imaging [4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Therefore, this study aimed to analyze and evaluate milling errors according to the types of ceramics through qualitative and quantitative analysis. A three-dimensional (3D) measuring program was used for the analysis, which is frequently adopted for measuring scanner errors and analyzing mechanical errors [ 26 , 27 , 28 ], in addition to assessing the accuracy of prostheses [ 29 , 30 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Milling Accuracy of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Crowns Fabricated Using the Dental Medical Device System: A Three-Dimensional Analysis

Kang

Lee

et al. 2020

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to analyze the milling accuracy of lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced silicate crown fabricated using chairside computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system. Mandibular left first premolar was selected for abutment. A master model was obtained for digital impression using an intraoral scanner, and crowns were designed using a CAD software design program. Amber Mill (AM), IPS e max CAD (IPS), and CELTRA DUO (CEL) were used in the CAD/CAM system, and a total 45 crowns (15 crowns each for AM, IPS, and CEL) was fabricated. Milling accuracy was analyzed with respect to trueness, measured by superimposing CAD design data and scan data through a three-dimensional program to compare the outer and inner surfaces and internal and external parts, thereby acquiring both quantitative and qualitative data. Data were analyzed using the non-parametric test and Kruskal–Wallis H test. In addition, the Mann–Whitney U test was used by applying the level of significance (0.05/3 = 0.016) adjusted by post-analysis Bonferroni correction. All the measured parts of the lithium disilicate and zirconia-reinforced silicate crowns showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). The lithium disilicate (AM and IPS) materials showed superior milling accuracy than the zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (CEL) materials.

show abstract

Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard

Cited by 40 publications

References 23 publications

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

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

Evaluation of the Milling Accuracy of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Crowns Fabricated Using the Dental Medical Device System: A Three-Dimensional Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About