Accuracy of intraoral scanners based on jaw curve and inter-implant distance
Downloads
Background: In digital dentistry, the intraoral scanner (IOS) is the primary data-collecting device. The data must be accurate to prevent undesirable stresses and technological difficulties resulting from prosthetic misfits. The span length of restorations influences the accuracy of IOS impressions. Purpose: This research aimed to compare the accuracy of virtual models scanned by different IOSs to determine whether jaw curvature and inter-implant distance affect accuracy. Methods: Four mandibular edentulous models were prepared by replacing the site of the missing tooth with an implant. The prepared holes were drilled at 7mm, 14mm, 21mm, and 28mm. Five scans for each model were taken with a desktop laboratory scanner as a reference model and with Trios3Shape and 3Disc Heron IOSs to evaluate trueness and precision (T&P). The scans were saved as standard triangulation language files and statistically analyzed at a level of significance (P ≤ 0.05). Results: There was a significant difference between the IOSs in inter-implant distances (P < 0.05). The greatest distortion was reported in the 21mm and 28mm groups for both scanners (P ≤ 0.05), while the lowest distortion was observed in the 7mm and 14mm groups for the Trios3Shape scanner. Conclusion: Jaw curvature and inter-implant distance impacted the accuracy of the IOS. Distortion and reduced reproducibility of T&P increased with jaw curve and inter-implant distance. The Trios3Shape IOS showed maximum accuracy at 7mm and 14mm inter-implant distances, while the 3Disc Heron IOS produced significant distortion of trueness at 21mm and 28mm inter-implant distances.
Downloads
Kim M, Kim J, Mai H-N, Kwon T-Y, Choi Y-D, Lee C-H, Lee D-H. Comparative clinical study of the marginal discrepancy of fixed dental prosthesis fabricated by the milling-sintering method using a presintered alloy. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019; 11(5): 280–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.280
Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: A review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14(1): 16–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x
Floriani F, Lopes GC, Cabrera A, Duarte W, Zoidis P, Oliveira D, Rocha MG. Linear accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions of implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Dent. 2023; 17(4): 964–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1758798
Kuroda S, Yotsuya M, Sato T, Hisanaga R, Nomoto S, Sekine H. The effect of scanning pathways on trueness and precision in full-arch optical impression. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1): 390. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03101-z
Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: A systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017; 26(6): 929–35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000683
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28(11): 1360–7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12994
Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: A three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32(4): 792–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5431
Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen C, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27(4): 465–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12567
Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26(3): 101–21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1922/ejprd_01752abduo21
Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018; 2018: 3761750. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3761750
Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, Pigozzo MN, Laganá DC, Sesma N. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119(2): 214–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.007
Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(5): 829. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050829
Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28(4): e902–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12764
Pan S, Guo D, Zhou Y, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF, Mühlemann S. Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model‐free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double‐blind self‐controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30(7): 617–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13447
Güth J-F, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17(4): 1201–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0
Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: A comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31(6): 577–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5938
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17(1): 149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018; 69: 110–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006
Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Suzuki T, Minakuchi S. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62(3): 324–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.12.005
Jivanescu A, Rotar P, Hategan S, Pricop C, Rus R, Goguta L. Clinical factors influence the trueness of intra-oral scanning. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2019; 27(1): 51–5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1922/ejprd_01861jivanescu05
ISO 5725-1:2023 - Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 1: General principles and definitions. 2nd ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2023. web: https://www.iso.org/standard/69418.html
Nulty AB. A comparison of full arch trueness and precision of nine intra-oral digital scanners and four lab digital scanners. Dent J. 2021; 9(7): 75. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj9070075
Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1): 101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0792-7
Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(S16): 374–92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13273
Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C. Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021; 13(2): 107–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2021.13.2.107
Park G-H, Son K, Lee K-B. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121(5): 803–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.014
Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1): 263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01254-9
Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 2017; 78(6): 466–71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0103-3
O’Toole S, Osnes C, Bartlett D, Keeling A. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment. Dent Mater. 2019; 35(3): 495–500. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.012
Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62(3): 347–52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.01.003
Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Peampring C, Sanohkan S. Confocal 3d optical intraoral scanners and comparison of image capturing accuracy. Comput Mater Contin. 2020; 66(1): 303–14. doi: https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2020.011943
Utomo H, Ruth MSMA, Wangsa LG, Salazar-Gamarra RE, Dib LL. Simple smartphone applications for superimposing 3D imagery in forensic dentistry. Dent J. 2020; 53(1): 50–6. doi: https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v53.i1.p50-56
Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Grassia V, editor. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021: 2673040. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2673040
Copyright (c) 2024 Dental Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
- Every manuscript submitted to must observe the policy and terms set by the Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi).
- Publication rights to manuscript content published by the Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) is owned by the journal with the consent and approval of the author(s) concerned.
- Full texts of electronically published manuscripts can be accessed free of charge and used according to the license shown below.
- The Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
