Impact of scanning strategy on the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans: a preliminary study on segmental scans and merge methods

Mai, Hang‐Nga; Lee, Cheong-Hee; Lee, Jae-Mok; Kim, So-Yeun; Lee, Jae Mok; Lee, Keun Woo; Lee, Du‐Hyeong

doi:10.4047/jap.2022.14.2.88

Cited by 21 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11,12,[57][58][59][60][61][62] However, the majority of these studies were performed on completely dentate conditions. 11,12,[57][58][59][60][61][62] Limited studies have analyzed the influence of the scanning pattern on scanning accuracy of half-and complete-arch intraoral digital scans (Figure 3), reporting contradictory results (Table 3). [38][39][40]63,64…”

Section: Scanning Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

Revilla‐León,

Lanis,

Yilmaz

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo report the means to maximize the predictability and accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans through the evaluation of operator and patient related factors.Materials and MethodsCollection of published articles related to factors that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans was completed in 4 data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science. All studies related to variables that can influence the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) were considered. These variables included ambient lighting, scanning pattern, implant scan body (ISB) design, techniques for splinting ISBs, arch location, implant position and inter‐implant distance.ResultsAmong operator‐related factors, ambient lighting conditions, scanning pattern, and ISB design (material, geometry, and retention design) can impact the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. It is unclear the optimal ISB for maximizing the IOSs accuracy; however, polymer ISB can wear with multiple reuse and sterilization methods. Among patient‐related factors, additional variables should be considered, namely arch (maxillary vs mandibular arch), implant position in the arch, inter‐implant distance, implant depth, and angulation.ConclusionsAmbient lighting conditions should be established based on the IOS selected to optimize the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal scanning pattern may vary based on the IOS, clinical situation, and the number of implants. The optimal ISB design may vary depending on the IOS used. Metallic implant scan bodies are preferred over polymer ISB designs to minimize wear due to multiple use and sterilization distortion. Among patient‐related factors, additional variables should be considered namely the arch scanned, implant position in the arch, inter‐implant distance, implant depth and angulation. The impact of these factors may vary depending on the IOS selected.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

Section: Scanning Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

Revilla‐León,

Lanis,

Yilmaz

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent study investigated the accuracy of full-arch intraoral scans obtained by different scan strategies with the segmental scan and merge methods: if dental arches are scanned segmentally in two parts, the accuracy is comparable with the one-time scan method. Conversely, when scanning is performed in more than two segments, the accuracy of full-arch image decreases, especially in the intermolar distance evaluation [ 22 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners

Giuliodori¹,

Rappelli

Aquilanti

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS), according to different scanning strategies and to the experience of the operator. Six IOS setups were used in this study. Ten scans of a complete epoxy-resin-made maxillary dental arch were performed with each IOS, using four different scanning techniques (manufacturer-suggested scanning strategy, cut-out rescan technique, simplified scanning technique, novel scanning technique). Scans were also performed by an expert operator in the field of digital dentistry. An operator with no experience in the field of intraoral scans performed 10 scans following each of the scanning strategy suggested by the manufacturer. The master model was scanned with an industrial high-resolution reference scanner to obtain a highly accurate digitized reference model. All the digital models were aligned with the reference model using a software aimed at comparing the STL files. A total of n = 300 scans were performed. Once the data were pooled, Medit i700 and Primescan obtained the best results in terms of both trueness and precision, showing no statistically significative differences (p > 0.05) to the first and the second scanning technique, Medit i700 scanner allowed to obtain the best values both in terms of trueness (24.4 ± 2.1 μm and 21.4 ± 12.9 μm, respectively) and precision compared to other IOS (23.0 ± 1.6 μm and 30.0 ± 18.0 μm, respectively). When considering the third scanning technique, Medit i700 recorded the best values in terms of trueness while Primescan recorded the best values in terms of precision (24.0 ± 2.7 μm and 26.8 ± 13.7 μm, respectively). When considering the two operators, significant differences between the two were found only with Medit i700 (p < 0.001). The examined IOS showed statistically significant differences in terms of trueness and precision. The used scanning strategy is a factor influencing the accuracy of IOS. Considering the expertise of the operators, clinically scanning strategies are not operative sensitive in terms of accuracy.

show abstract

“…During the theoretical education, the operation of the IOSs were presented step-by-step, and the scanning strategies were demonstrated. Knowledge of the scanning paths is crucial, because the accuracy of virtual models and the working time of intraoral scanning are both dependent on the scanning strategy [ 47 , 61 , 62 ]. In the case of the Trios 4 IOS, the suggested scanning path is as follows: the upper and lower jaws both start at the occlusal surface; when scanning maxilla, move from the occlusal, to the buccal, to the palatal surface; and when scanning the mandible, move from the occlusal, to the lingual, to the buccal surface [ 59 , 63 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The appearance of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in dental offices was an important milestones for the digital innovations in dentistry. Knowing the learning curve for intraoral scanning is crucial, because it can serve as a guideline for clinicians before buying a new IOS. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve required by dental students for intraoral scanning with the 3Shape Trios 4 IOS and the CEREC Primescan IOS, based on scanning time. Methods A total of 20 dental students with no previous experience in intraoral scanning participated in the present study. 10 students scanned with Trios 4® IOS (TRI) and 10 students took digital impressions with Primescan® IOS (CER). Every student created 15 digital impressions from patients. Prior to taking the impressions, theoretical and practical education was provided. The total scanning time included the upper and lower arches as well as bite registration, for which average values were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata package with a mixed-effects generalized least squares regression models. Results The average total scanning times were the following: TRI – 205 s for the 1st impression, 133.6 s for the 15th, CER – 289.8 s for the 1st impression, 147 s for the 15th. The model-based estimate of the difference between the two in case of TRI was 57.5 s, and in CER was 144.2 s which is a highly significant improvement in both cases (P < 0.0001). The slope of the scanning time vs. learning phase curve gradually approached flatness, and maintained a plateau: TRI – from the 11th measurement and CER – from the 14th measurement onward. Conclusions Given the limitations of the present study, we found difference between the learning curve of scanner types which are operate various principle of imaging. In case of the TRI fewer digital impressions (11 repeating) were sufficient to reach the average scanning time of an experienced user than using CER (14 repeating). Trial registration The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number: 184/2022).

show abstract

Impact of scanning strategy on the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans: a preliminary study on segmental scans and merge methods

Cited by 21 publications

References 23 publications

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners

Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About