Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2023; 17(04): 1056-1064
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1757568
Original Article

Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Mina Yahia Falih
1   Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Baghdad University, Iraq
,
Manhal A. Majeed
1   Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Baghdad University, Iraq
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in terms of trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners (IOS) and the effect of different finishing line designs on the IOS's accuracy.

Materials and Methods Three printed models of the maxillary arch with maxillary right first molar virtually prepared with chamfer, shoulder, and vertical preparation designs were used as master models in this study. Each model was scanned 30 times with each IOS: Medit i700, Planscan Emerald S, CEREC Primescan, TRIOS 3, CS3600, MEDIT i500, Heron 3Disc, and Cerec Omnicam. The trueness was measured by superimposition of the scanned dataset made with IOS and the scanned dataset made with a lab scanner (In Lab Medit T710) that was used as a reference and the deviation was measured and expressed as a color-coded map by the metrology program (Medit compare, version 2.3.5.892), while precision was measured by the superimposition of the scans of each IOS on each other.

The data were analyzed statistically using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, one-way ANOVA test, and Bonferroni test at significance level of 0.05.

Results The tested IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision. Medit i700 and CEREC Primescan recorded the highest precision with no significant difference between them, while Medit i700 recorded the highest trueness as compared to other IOS. Each IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision with the three finishing line designs except CEREC Primescan and Heron 3 disc that showed no significant difference in trueness with the three finishing line designs and CS3600 that showed no significant difference in precision with the three finishing line designs.

Conclusion A significant difference in accuracy was found among the tested IOS and the type of finishing line design had a significant effect on IOS's accuracy.

Keyword

accuracy - intraoral scanner - finishing line - digital dentistry


Publication History

Article published online:
13 December 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Kachhara S, Nallaswamy D, Ganapathy DM, Sivaswamy V, Rajaraman V. Assessment of intraoral scanning technology for multiple implant impressions - a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020; 20 (02) 141-152
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res 2016; 60 (02) 72-84
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17 (01) 149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18 (01) 27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Khadaier R.. (2015). “Marginal fitness of CAD/CAM all ceramic crowns constructed by direct and indirect digital impression techniques (An In vitro-Study)”. A master thesis university of Baghdad
  • 6 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725–1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measuring methods and results. Part-I: General principles and definitions. Berlin: International Organization for Standardization; 1994. . Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/11833.html
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017; 17 (01) 92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Güth J-F, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C. A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20 (07) 1487-1494
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Stefanelli LV, Franchina A, Pranno A. et al. Use of intraoral scanners for full dental arches: could different strategies or overlapping software affect accuracy?. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18 (19) 9946
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (06) 518-523
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Vasudavan S, Sullivan SR, Sonis AL. Comparison of intraoral 3D scanning and conventional impressions for fabrication of orthodontic retainers. J Clin Orthod 2010; 44 (08) 495-497
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018; 26 (03) 101-121
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Aly P, Mohsen C. Comparison of the accuracy of three-dimensional printed casts, digital, and conventional casts: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (02) 189-193
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Li R, Chen H, Wang Y, Zhou Y, Shen Z, Sun Y. Three-dimensional trueness and margin quality of monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated by additive 3D gel deposition. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64 (04) 478-484
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 ISO 12836. Dentistry – Digitizing devices for CAD/CAM systems for indirect dental restorations – Test methods for assessing accuracy. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards for Organization (ISO);2015. Accessed March 2, 2016. Available from: http://www.iso.org/iso/store.html
  • 16 Lim J-H, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (02) 225-232
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Schmidt A, Klussmann L, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions in patients: an update. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (03) 688
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (05) 581-588
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 https://medimatch.co.uk/medit-digital-intraoral-dental-scanner/#:~:text=Medit%20goes%20from%20strength%20the%20strength%20with%20the,25%25%20smaller%20and%2012%25%20lighter%20than%20the%20i500
  • 20 Rakhshan A, Pishro-Nik H. Introduction to simulation using MATLAB. In: Introduction to Probability, Statistics, and Random Processes. Kappa Research, LLC; 2014: 703-723
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Robles-Medina M, Rubio MR, Salido MP, Pradies G. Digital intraoral impression methods: an update on accuracy. Curr Oral Health Rep 2020; 7: 1-15
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics–Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2014; 54: 203-221
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB, Stevens C, Cohen B. 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Inside Dentistry 2009; 5 (04) 70-74
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kim RJY, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120 (06) 895-903.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Park J-M, Kim RJ-Y, Lee K-W. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123 (01) 113-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Vecsei B. et al. Digital Impression Systems, CAD/CAM, and STL file. In: Guided Endodontics. Springer; 2021: 27-63
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Mistry GS, Borse A, Shetty OK, Tabassum R. Digital impression system–virtually becoming a reality. J Adv Med Dent Scie 2014; 2 (01) 56-63
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L. et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017; 2017: 8427595
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016; 47 (04) 343-349
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112 (06) 1461-1471
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Joda T, Matthisson L, Zitzmann NU. Impact of aging on the accuracy of 3D-printed dental models: an in vitro investigation. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (05) 1436
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont 2016; 8 (05) 354-362
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar