Time and Accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam Using Two Different Software Programs

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of software on scan time, trueness, and precision of digital scans created using the CEREC Omnicam. Material and methods Sixty scans (20 scans/provider) of a standard reference cast were made by three different providers using the CEREC Omnicam with both CEREC Ortho 1.2.1 software (10 scans/provider) and CEREC SW 4.4.4 software (10 scans/provider). A digital full arch scan and the time to complete each scan were recorded. Trueness was calculated by overlaying the digital scans against a reference file created using the standard reference cast and a laboratory‐based, white light, 3‐dimensional scanner. Precision was calculated by overlaying each of digital scans against each other, using each scan as a reference. The non‐parametric Mann‐Whitney U‐test was used to determine significant differences attributable to scanning software for each provider. Results The CEREC Ortho 1.2.1 software required a longer scan time than the CEREC SW 4.4.4 software for each provider (∼1 minute). No significant difference in trueness was observed within one provider. Two individual providers had higher precision when scanning with the CEREC Ortho 1.2.1 software than the CEREC SW 4.4.4 software. Conclusion Software and scan strategy may affect the accuracy of complete‐arch scans. The CEREC Ortho 1.2.1 software may demonstrate a speed‐accuracy tradeoff, with generally longer scan times and possibly more precise scans.

Influence of age, training, intraoral scanner, and software version on the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators

“…This may imply that the update in the software version improved the faster acquisition of accuracy (trueness in this case) for inexperienced operators, yet once experience was established, the updated software version no longer showed an advantage over the older software version. Previous studies have also investigated the effect of different software versions on the trueness and precision of IOS scans; 8,10,21–23 however contradicting results have been reported. A recent study showed that software version affected the trueness of T3 scans and a newer version (20.1.2) resulted in higher trueness than one of the software tested in the present study (18.1.2, Center 1) when complete arch and 4‐unit fixed partial denture scans were performed 8 .…”

“…6,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Patient-related factors such as cheek flexibility, tongue interference, salivary rate, breath, preparation margin depth, presence of different restorative materials, implants, edentulous spaces, and extent of the scan; system-related factors including IOS system, software version, requirement of powder, scanning strategy, calibration; and environment-related factors such as lighting conditions, ambient temperature or humidity may influence scan accuracy. 2,4,6,8,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Operator-related factors 24 such as training 33,34 and experience 1,35 may also impact scan accuracy, as they provide the knowledge required to know how to best use each IOS, and the capacity to apply the scan strategy or the management of the patient. The training was reported to improve the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators, 33 while scans performed by experienced operators have demonstrated superior accuracy in comparison to their less-experienced counterparts.…”

“…Even though the accuracy of IOSs has improved over time, 14 it remains a central area of focus within the IOS research field 6,14–20 . Patient‐related factors such as cheek flexibility, tongue interference, salivary rate, breath, preparation margin depth, presence of different restorative materials, implants, edentulous spaces, and extent of the scan; system‐related factors including IOS system, software version, requirement of powder, scanning strategy, calibration; and environment‐related factors such as lighting conditions, ambient temperature or humidity may influence scan accuracy 2,4,6,8,14–32 . Operator‐related factors 24 such as training 33,34 and experience 1,35 may also impact scan accuracy, as they provide the knowledge required to know how to best use each IOS, and the capacity to apply the scan strategy or the management of the patient.…”