Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete arch digital scan, part 2: A comparison of scan strategies

Lee, Kyu-Bok; Jin, Myoung-Uk

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.021

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The laboratory scanner showed weaker correlations compared to the group of intraoral scanners, which means that the impact on the scanning accuracy decreases as the volume and area of the abutments increase. As the intraoral scanner develops the entire video by continuously shooting the area in a small range, it has been reported that the greater the scanning range, the greater the error in the accuracy [27][28][29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many previous studies have reported that the greater the scanning range, the greater the error in the intraoral scanner, and that the scanning area for long-span prostheses as the complete-arch is inappropriate for fixed prostheses [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. The limited space in the oral cavity, the effect of the accuracy of the intraoral scanner on the marginal and internal fit, and the effect of increasing the scan range on the accuracy of intraoral scanners are still to be investigated [30,31].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In previous studies, the accuracy of intraoral scanners was evaluated in the complete-arch [36]. However, the scanning area for the fixed prosthesis of a single crown, which is most often applied in clinical practice, is between three and five teeth, and the accuracy of the abutment is considered important [27,31]. Despite this importance, an assessment of the types of abutments used for fixed prostheses (premolar and molar) and the impacts of the volume and area of these abutments on scanning accuracy is still lacking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Based on the Type of Tooth Preparation for a Single Crown

Lee

2021

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in 10 abutments (five premolars and five molars) obtained in a dental clinic and to analyze the impacts of the volume and area of abutments on scanning accuracy. Abutment casts were scanned five times with a 3D contact scanner (DS10; Renishaw plc). The five scan files were lined up and then merged, and one high-resolution computer-aided design reference model (CRM) was obtained. To obtain a computer-aided design test model (CTM), three types of intraoral scanners (CS3600 (Carestream Dental), i500 (Medit), and EZIS PO (DDS)) and one type of laboratory scanner (E1; 3Shape) were employed. Using 3D analysis software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems), the accuracy of the scanners was evaluated, including optimal overlap by optimal alignment. The conformity of the overlapped data was calculated by the root mean square (RMS) value, using the 3D compare function for evaluation. As for statistical analysis, testing was conducted, using one-way and two-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05) for the comparison of the groups. To analyze the correlations of the volume and area of the abutments with accuracy, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted (α = 0.00625). Both premolar and molar abutments showed a lower RMS value on the laboratory scanner than on the intraoral scanners, and the RMS value was lower in premolars than in molars (p < 0.001). In the intraoral scanner group, CS3600 showed the best accuracy (p < 0.001). There were significant positive correlations for the volume and area of the abutments with accuracy (p < 0.001). The type, volume, and area of the clinically applicable abutments may affect the accuracy of intraoral scanners; however, the scanners used in the present study showed a clinically acceptable accuracy range, regardless of the type of abutment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Based on the Type of Tooth Preparation for a Single Crown

Lee

2021

Applied Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No clinical external factors were simulated (humidity, blood, patient movements). The scanning pattern was the same for all the IOSs, even though previous studies show conflicting reports regarding the influence of the scanning path on the final accuracy of digital impressions [31,32]. As another limitation, a better material could have been used to fill the gap of the edentulous area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There a Significant Difference in Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners for Short-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis? A Comparative In Vitro Study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the accuracy of the older generation of IOSs an impediment for obtaining a quality intraoral digital impression? The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in accuracy between four intraoral scanners (two of the latest IOSs and two older IOSs) in the scenario of a short span fixed partial denture, and to determine if these differences have a major impact on the quality of the final digital impression. Four intraoral scanners: Cerec PrimeScan, Medit i700, Cerec Omnicam and Planmeca PlanScan and one laboratory scanner were used in this study. The scanned data were processed with the help of Geomagic Control X, a metrology software. For the statistical data analysis, the level of significance was set as 0.05 (α = 0.05). The Medit i700 group displayed the best level of trueness with the median value of 23.25 µm, PrimeScan group with a median of 25.55 µm, Omnicam group with a median of 32.3 µm and the PlanScan group which displayed the lowest level of trueness with a median value of 75.8 µm. From the precision data analysis, it was concluded that the PrimeScan group showed the best results, followed by Medit i700, Omnicam and the PlanScan group which showed the lowest precision. Even if there are some significant differences in accuracy between old and new IOSs, in the in vitro scenario of short span dental prostheses, the accuracy values were within the clinically acceptable range and may present important clinical implications.

show abstract

“…A lot of variables can influence the accuracy of an IOS: ambient light, distance, substrate, preparation design, scanning strategy, experience, different non-contact optical technologies, hardware, and software version [16][17][18][19][20][21][22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of Intraoral Scanners for Full Dental Arches: Could Different Strategies or Overlapping Software Affect Accuracy?

Stefanelli

Franchina²,

Pranno

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The use of digital devices is strongly influencing the dental rehabilitation workflow both for single-crown rehabilitation and for full-arch prosthetic treatments. Methods: In this study, trueness was analyzed by overlapping the scan dataset made with Medit I-500 (by using two different tips and two different scan strategies) with the scan dataset made with lab scanning, and the values of the (90°–10°)/2 method were reported. Precision was evaluated by using the same values of trueness coming from the intra-group overlapping (scan dataset made with an IOS overlapped and compared to each other). Moreover, two different software programs of overlapping were used to calculate accuracy values. Results: The mean difference of trueness was 26.61 ± 5.07 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using a new design of the tip, 37.99 ± 4.94 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip, and 51.22 ± 6.57 µm with a new strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip. The mean difference of precision was 23.57 ± 5.77 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using a new design of the tip, 38.34 ± 11.39 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip, and 46.93 ± 7.15 µm with a new strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip. No difference was found in the trueness and precision data extracted using the two different programs of superimposition Geomagic Control X and Medit Compare. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study showed that the latest version of I-Medit 500 with the use of a new tip seems to be promising in terms of accuracy when a full arch needs to be scanned. Moreover, Medit Compare, which is an application of Medit IOS software, can be used to calculate IOS accuracy.

show abstract

Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete arch digital scan, part 2: A comparison of scan strategies

Cited by 27 publications

References 28 publications

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Based on the Type of Tooth Preparation for a Single Crown

Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Based on the Type of Tooth Preparation for a Single Crown

Is There a Significant Difference in Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners for Short-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis? A Comparative In Vitro Study

Use of Intraoral Scanners for Full Dental Arches: Could Different Strategies or Overlapping Software Affect Accuracy?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About