Effect of Different Software Programs on the Accuracy of Dental Scanner Using Three-Dimensional Analysis

Keunbada Son, Wan-Sun Lee, Kyu-Bok Lee, Keunbada Son, Wan-Sun Lee, Kyu-Bok Lee

Abstract

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the 3D analysis for complete arch, half arch, and tooth preparation region by using four analysis software programs. The CAD reference model (CRM; N = 1 per region) and CAD test models (CTMs; N = 20 per software) of complete arch, half arch, and tooth preparation were obtained by using scanners. For both CRM and CTMs, mesh data other than the same area were deleted. For 3D analysis, four analysis software programs (Geomagic control X, GOM Inspect, Cloudcompare, and Materialise 3-matic) were used in the alignment of CRM and CTMs as well as in the 3D comparison. Root mean square (RMS) was regarded as the result of the 3D comparison. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference tests were performed for statistical comparison of four analysis software programs (α = 0.05). In half-arch and tooth preparation region, the four analysis software programs showed a significant difference in RMS values (p < 0.001), but in complete-arch region, no significant difference was found among the four software programs (p = 0.139). As the area of the virtual cast for 3D analysis becomes smaller, variable results are obtained depending on the software program used, and the difference in results among software programs are not considered in the 3D analysis for complete-arch region.

Keywords: 3D analysis; 3D comparison; 3D dental scanner; accuracy; alignment; dentistry.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic representation of alignment procedure and distance calculation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Experimental design.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of color difference maps of complete-arch region evaluated by using four analysis software programs: (A) Geomagic control X; (B) GOM Inspect; (C) Cloudcompare; (D) Materialise 3-matic.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of color difference maps of half-arch region evaluated by using four analysis software programs. (A) Geomagic control X; (B) GOM Inspect; (C) Cloudcompare; (D) Materialise 3-matic.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Comparison of color difference maps of tooth preparation region evaluated by using four analysis software programs: (A) Geomagic control X; (B) GOM Inspect; (C) Cloudcompare; (D) Materialise 3-matic.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Comparison of root mean squares evaluated by using four analysis software programs. (A) Complete-arch region; (B) Half-arch region; (C) Tooth preparation region. The letters (a and b) indicate significant differences among software program groups using Tukey HSD test, p < 0.05.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Schematic representation of corresponding point and point clouds’ sampling: (A) Point-to-point; (B) Point-to-plane; (C) Sampling of point clouds by filtering radius. CTM, CAD test model; CRM, CAD reference model.

References

    1. Rekow E.D. Digital dentistry: The new state of the art—Is it disruptive or destructive? Dent. Mater. 2020;36:9–24. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.08.103.
    1. Baghani M.T., Shayegh S.S., Johnston W.M., Shidfar S., Hakimaneh S.M.R. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy and precision of intraoral and extraoral complete-arch scans. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.017.
    1. Persson A.S., Odén A., Andersson M., Sandborgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: Virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent. Mater. 2009;25:929–936. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100.
    1. Revilla-León M., Subramanian S.G., Özcan M., Krishnamurthy V.R. Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner. J. Prosthodont. 2020;29:107–113. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13135.
    1. Sim J.Y., Jang Y., Kim W.C., Kim H.Y., Lee D.H., Kim J.H. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2019;63:25–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.002.
    1. Piedra-Cascón W., Methani M.M., Quesada-Olmo N., Jiménez-Martínez M.J., Revilla-León M. Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.009.
    1. Son K., Lee K.B. Effect of tooth types on the accuracy of dental 3d scanners: An in vitro study. Materials. 2020;13:1744. doi: 10.3390/ma13071744.
    1. Vecsei B., Joós-Kovács G., Borbély J., Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems—An in vitro study. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2017;61:177–184. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.001.
    1. Zhang F., Suh K.J., Lee K.M. Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: An in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0157713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157713.
    1. Kim R.J.Y., Park J.M., Shim J.S. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018;120:895–903.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035.
    1. Park G.H., Son K., Lee K.B. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019;121:803–810. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.014.
    1. Peng P.W., Hsu C.Y., Huang H.Y., Chao J.C., Lee W.F. Trueness of removable partial denture frameworks additively manufactured with selective laser melting. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.06.035.
    1. Yu B.Y., Son K., Lee K.B. Evaluation of intaglio surface trueness and margin quality of interim crowns in accordance with the build angle of stereolithography apparatus 3-dimensional printing. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.028.
    1. Ammoun R., Suprono M.S., Goodacre C.J., Oyoyo U., Carrico C.K., Kattadiyil M.T. Influence of tooth preparation design and scan angulations on the accuracy of two intraoral digital scanners: An in vitro study based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J. Prosthodont. 2020;29:201–206. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13148.
    1. Latham J., Ludlow M., Mennito A., Kelly A., Evans Z., Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020;123:85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008.
    1. Treesh J.C., Liacouras P.C., Taft R.M., Brooks D.I., Raiciulescu S., Ellert D.O., Ye L. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018;120:382–388. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.005.
    1. Sousa M.V.S., Vasconcelos E.C., Janson G., Garib D., Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2012;142:269–273. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.028.
    1. Zhang Z. Iterative point matching for registration of free-form curves and surfaces. Int. J Comput. Vis. 1994;13:119–152. doi: 10.1007/BF01427149.
    1. Sharp G.C., Lee S.W., Wehe D.K. ICP registration using invariant features. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2002;24:90–102. doi: 10.1109/34.982886.
    1. Pérez L., Diez E., Usamentiaga R., García D.F. Industrial robot control and operator training using virtual reality interfaces. Comput. Ind. 2019;109:114–120. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.05.001.
    1. 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;35:495–500. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.012.
    1. Jeong Y.G., Lee W.S., Lee K.B. Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2018;10:245. doi: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.245.
    1. Park J.M., Jeon J., Koak J.Y., Kim S.K., Heo S.J. Dimensional accuracy and surface characteristics of 3D-printed dental casts. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.07.008.
    1. Lee D., Lee S.Y., Kim H., Park C. A Hybrid Dental Model Concept Utilizing Fused Deposition Modeling and Digital Light Processing 3D Printing. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2020;33:229–231. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6534.
    1. Deja M., Dobrzyński M., Rymkiewicz M. Application of reverse engineering technology in part design for shipbuilding industry. Pol. Marit. Res. 2019;26:126–133. doi: 10.2478/pomr-2019-0032.
    1. Chen L., Lin W.S., Polido W.D., Eckert G.J., Morton D. Accuracy, reproducibility, and dimensional stability of additively manufactured surgical templates. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019;122:309–314. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.007.
    1. Lin C.C., Ishikawa M., Huang B.H., Huang M.S., Cheng H.C., Maida T., Endo K. In vitro accuracy of static guided implant surgery measured by optical scan: Examining the impact of operator experience. Appl. Sci. 2020;10:2718. doi: 10.3390/app10082718.
    1. Cheng S., Marras I., Zafeiriou S., Pantic M. Statistical non-rigid ICP algorithm and its application to 3D face alignment. Image Vis. Comput. 2017;58:3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.imavis.2016.10.007.
    1. Marcel R., Reinhard H., Andreas K. Accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated bite splints: Milling vs 3D printing. Clin. Oral Investig. 2020;24:4607–4615. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03329-x.
    1. Li P., Wang R., Wang Y., Tao W. Evaluation of the ICP Algorithm in 3D Point Cloud Registration. IEEE Access. 2020;8:68030–68048. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2986470.
    1. Holz D., Ichim A.E., Tombari F., Rusu R.B., Behnke S. Registration with the point cloud library: A modular framework for aligning in 3-D. IEEE Robot Autom. Mag. 2015;22:110–124. doi: 10.1109/MRA.2015.2432331.
    1. Winkler J., Gkantidis N. Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: An in vivo analysis. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-58075-7.
    1. Kernen F., Schlager S., Alvarez V.S., Mehrhof J., Vach K., Kohal R., Flügge T. Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.007. in press.
    1. Son K., Lee S., Kang S.H., Park J., Lee K.B., Jeon M., Yun B.J. A comparison study of marginal and internal fit assessment methods for fixed dental prostheses. J. Clin. Med. 2019;8:785. doi: 10.3390/jcm8060785.
    1. Huang M.Y., Son K., Lee K.B. Effect of distance between the abutment and the adjacent teeth on intraoral scanning: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021;125:911–917. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.034.
    1. Son K., Lee K.B. Effect of finish line locations of tooth preparation on the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2021;24:29–40.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe