Intraoral Scanning Systems - A Current Overview

Kannan, S.Kamala; Mathew, Chalakuzhiyil Abraham; Paulraj, Roseline Savarimuthu

doi:10.21474/ijar01/11956

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Special processing software generates point clouds, meshes, and 3D coordinates (XYZ axis). These point clouds and meshes are aligned and fused, culminating in a 3D reconstruction of the scanned object (Marques et al., 2021; Zimmermann et al., 2015). Consistent with preceding studies, our research found no significant differences in the overall 3D deviation between the IOS and CI techniques (Marshaha et al., 2023; Papaspyridakos et al., 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Cheng,

Zhang,

Liu

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry.Materials and MethodsAn edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best‐fit method was then applied in the computer‐aided design (CAD) software to compute the three‐dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal–Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations.ResultsSignificant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05).ConclusionsStereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant‐supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross‐arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Cheng,

Zhang,

Liu

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The field of view effect is the most important reason for low accuracy of IOSs reported in the literature. Evidence shows that the larger the area scanned by IOS, the greater the errors of digital impressions could be; such large errors are due to the cumulative effects of scanning errors (Zimmermann et al, 2015 ). Also, different IOSs may have different levels of accuracy (Takeuchi et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of maxillary full‐arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners

Siadat,

Chitsaz,

Zeighami

et al. 2024

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesLimited studies are available on the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full‐arch implant and tooth models. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of maxillary full‐arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two IOSs.Materials and MethodsThis in vitro, experimental study was conducted on two maxillary dentiform models: one with six prepared natural teeth and the other with six implants at the site of canine, first premolar, and first molar teeth, bilaterally. A highly accurate industrial scanner was used for actual measurements on the models that served as the reference scan. TS (Trios3) and CO (CEREC Omnicam) IOSs were then used to scan each model 10 times according to the manufacturer's instructions. All scans were saved in STL format. The GOM Inspect software was used according to the best‐fit algorithm to compare the accuracy of measurements in the groups with the reference scan. The trueness and precision were calculated. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS by one‐way analysis of variance and t‐test (α = .05).ResultsTS showed a significantly higher trueness than CO for both tooth and implant models (p < .05). TS also revealed significantly higher precision than CO for the tooth model; however, the difference in precision for the implant model was not significant between the two IOSs (p > .05).ConclusionsTS showed higher accuracy than CO in both tooth and implant models.

show abstract

Intraoral Scanning Systems - A Current Overview

Cited by 2 publications

References 29 publications

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Accuracy of maxillary full‐arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About