Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners

Fukazawa, Shota; Odaira, Chikayuki; Kondo, Hisatomo

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2017.01.005

Cited by 102 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…All datasets were converted to STL (Standard Triangulated Language [8], Standard Tessellation Language [19], and Stereolithography [21]) file format via manufacturers' certified software for standardization. Four datasets of 4 study models were taken from the reference scanner as reference data.…”

Section: Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…e clinical usage of intraoral scanners has become more and more common. For the last decade, the effectiveness of intraoral scanners was studied to prove their practicability in various clinical settings [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Digital impression systems, when proving their credibility to replace conventional impression methods will benefit the orthodontic clinicians and patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conventional impression technique results in more discomfort especially for the orthodontic patients due to the presence of brackets and wire and additional time and effort required because of that. e scope of researches on intraoral scanning has been limited mostly to a prosthetic point of view [1,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. However, orthodontic conditions such as brackets and wires start to be included in more recent studies [11][12][13][14][15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Song

Kim

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim. is study aims to evaluate the accuracy of scanned images of 4 clinically used intraoral scanners (CS3600, i500, Trios3, Omnicam) when scanning the surface of full arch models with various kinds of orthodontic brackets in the presence of artificial saliva. Materials and Methods. Four study models were prepared; bonded with ceramic, metal, and resin brackets, respectively, and without brackets. Reference images were taken by scanning the models with an industrial scanner. Study models were then applied with an artificial saliva and scanned 10 times, respectively, with the above 4 intraoral scanners. All images were converted to STL file format and analyzed with 3D analysis software. By superimposing with the reference images, mean maximum discrepancy values and mean discrepancy values were collected and compared. For statistical analysis, two-way ANOVA was used. Results. Omnicam (1.247 ± 0.255) showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. CS3600 (0.758 ± 0.170), Trios3 (0.854 ± 0.166), and i500 (0.975 ± 0.172) performed relatively favourably. Resin (1.119 ± 0.255) and metal (1.086 ± 0.132) brackets showed higher mean maximum discrepancy values. Nonbracket (0.776 ± 0.250) and ceramic bracket (0.853 ± 0.269) models generally showed lower mean maximum discrepancy values in studied scanners. In mean discrepancy values, the difference between scanners was not statistically significant whereas among brackets, resin bracketed models (0.093 ± 0.142) showed the highest value. Conclusion. Intraoral scanners and brackets had significant influences on the scanned images with application of artificial saliva on the study models. It may be expected to have similar outcomes in an intraoral environment. Some data showed the discrepancy values up to about 1.5 mm that would require more caution in using intraoral scanners for production of detailed appliances and records.

show abstract

Section: Datasetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Song

Kim

2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Accuracy consists of trueness and precision (ISO 5725‐1) (ISO, ), and high accuracy is essential for fabricating precise prosthetic appliances (Fukazawa et al, ). Trueness indicates how much a measurement deviates from the actual object, while precision describes how close repeated measurements are to each other (Flügge et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra‐oral scanners used in dentistry

Kim

Lee

et al. 2019

Clinical Anatomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting intra-oral scanner accuracy by analyzing variation in measurements of a dental model according to scanning distance. A dental cast, including a prepared left mandibular first molar, was used. Rectangular frames measuring 20 × 30 mm with heights of 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 mm were made. The model was scanned 10 times with a reference scanner to obtain the true value. Scanning was performed 10 times at four distances of 0, 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 mm with the frame of each height using the following intra-oral scanners: TRIOS; CS 3500; and PlanScan. In the linear distance measurement method (2D), measurements were taken at five parameters using the Rapidform software. In the best-fit alignment method (3D), using the Geomagic Control X, the root mean square values of the two scan images were calculated. In the 2D comparison, the different from the reference value was the smallest at 2.5 and 5.0 mm. In the 3D comparison, 2.5 and 5.0 mm were the most accurate, and 0 mm was the least accurate among the four distances. To the best of our knowledge, this study was the first to evaluate the accuracy of scanning distances, and found a difference between the accuracy of the scanning distance and the accuracy of the scanner. Moreover, the results of this study indicated that the scanning distance was a variable affecting accuracy. Clin. Anat. 32:430-438, 2019.

show abstract

“…In addition, the RMS value is the standard for the evaluation of the accuracy of the scanning data in many studies [13][14][15]17]. The previous studies found that deviation of more than 100 µm from the complete arch resulted in an inaccurate fit of the final restoration in the maxilla and mandible [3,9] Also, an allowable range of less than 100 µm was proposed as an acceptable cement space for the prosthesis [3,18].…”

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

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

Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners

Abstract: The results of this study indicated that an optical impression method with an intraoral scanner could be applied to the implant therapy for multiple teeth missing.

Cited by 102 publications

References 27 publications

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

Accuracy on Scanned Images of Full Arch Models with Orthodontic Brackets by Various Intraoral Scanners in the Presence of Artificial Saliva

The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra‐oral scanners used in dentistry

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About