Robust surface reconstruction of teeth from raw pointsets

Mao, Zhi-Hong; Park, Kyusic; Lee, Kunwoo; Li, Xiongbing

doi:10.1002/cnm.2608

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this, practitioners need to rescan a meaningful area without being stationary to give enough information to the camera and software. The second scan will allow matching the previous POI, and the software will complete this missed area [ 30 ]. This rematching of POI is directly influenced by a complex geometry of the object such as high curvatures or many hidden faces that reduce the number of POI and complicates the process for the software [ 31 , 32 ] ( Figure 4(d) ).…”

Section: Clinical Impact Of Ios Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression

Richert

Goujat

Venet

et al. 2017

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

279

261

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To overcome difficulties associated with conventional techniques, impressions with IOS (intraoral scanner) and CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and manufacturing) technologies were developed for dental practice. The last decade has seen an increasing number of optical IOS devices, and these are based on different technologies; the choice of which may impact on clinical use. To allow informed choice before purchasing or renewing an IOS, this article summarizes first the technologies currently used (light projection, distance object determination, and reconstruction). In the second section, the clinical considerations of each strategy such as handling, learning curve, powdering, scanning paths, tracking, and mesh quality are discussed. The last section is dedicated to the accuracy of files and of the intermaxillary relationship registered with IOS as the rendering of files in the graphical user interface is often misleading. This overview leads to the conclusion that the current IOS is adapted for a common practice, although differences exist between the technologies employed. An important aspect highlighted in this review is the reduction in the volume of hardware which has led to an increase in the importance of software-based technologies.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Impact Of Ios Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression

Richert

Goujat

Venet

et al. 2017

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

279

261

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The missing information is acquired from a different perspective during the rotation of the object, and the following images are registered into the original mesh employing the multiple overlapping regions [19,20]. Contrastingly, small overlapping images are taken by IOS during linear movement of the device on the arch and are later merged with a software algorithm called "stitching" [21][22][23]. With the linear progression of imaging the dental arch, there are more and more surfaces to be integrated, eventually resulting in some degree of inaccuracy in the digital model [16,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Precision refers to the closeness of agreement between test results. Accordingly, the trueness of the intraoral scan often gradually decreases as the scan progresses away from the point of scan origin [21][22][23]26]. In order to reveal the trueness deviation due to the stitching, a new methodology was developed [27] in which superimposition was performed at the scanning origin only after carefully aligning this initial data point.…”

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

“…For this reason, clinicians have to give enough information for stitching the first and last scan data. The second scan allows matching the previous POI, and software complete the missing part of scanned area (Mao et al, 2014).…”

Section: Scanning Flow and Softwarementioning

confidence: 99%

Direct Digitalization Devices in Today’s Dental Practice: Intra Oral Scanners

Ural¹,

Kaleli²

2021

J Exp Clin Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapidly developing technologies and new changes in modern dentistry have led to more effective solutions to be used in our clinical practice. The digital workflow includes some steps, such as data acquisition, digitalization, designing, and subsequently manufacturing by using digital devices. In this process, acquiring the images from patients mouth, which is named computer-aided impression (CAI), is the first step of the digital workflow and named as digitalization. The need to skip many time-consuming intermediate steps and reduce the possibility of fabrication errors has made the digital workflow a popular choice for dentists and dental technicians. The popularity of intraoral scanners has increased rapidly since the 1980s. With the development of camera systems and software engineering, many companies have presented many different IOS devices, which are based on different software systems. This situation causes dentists to get confused due to the formation of a very large data cluster. IOS devices are used to capture the digital data and they are an effective alternative to conventional impressions in many ways, such as increased patient comfort, time efficiency, hygiene, predictability, and precise results. Clinicians should have enough technical information about the IOS they use to obtain optimal results in fabricated restorations. The aim of this review is to evaluate the scanning technologies of intraoral scanners, their advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice, scanning strategies, accuracy of scanning processes, and software protocols.

show abstract

Robust surface reconstruction of teeth from raw pointsets

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression

Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression

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

Direct Digitalization Devices in Today’s Dental Practice: Intra Oral Scanners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About