Effect of the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch on the accuracy of scanners

Min-Kyu Kim, KeunBaDa Son, Beom-Young Yu, Kyu-Bok Lee, Min-Kyu Kim, KeunBaDa Son, Beom-Young Yu, Kyu-Bok Lee

Abstract

Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a desktop scanner and intraoral scanners based on the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch.

Materials and methods: Seven reference models were fabricated based on the volumetric dimensions of complete arch (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%, 120%, and 130%). The reference models were digitized using an industrial scanner (Solutionix C500; MEDIT) for the fabrication of a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). The reference models were digitized using three intraoral scanners (CS3600, Trios3, and i500) and one desktop scanner (E1) to fabricate a CAD test model (CTM). CRM and CTM were then superimposed using inspection software, and 3D analysis was conducted. For statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance was used to verify the difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch and the accuracy based on the scanners, and the differences among the groups were analyzed using the Tukey HSD test as a post-hoc test (α=.05).

Results: The three different scanners showed a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P<.05), but the desktop scanner did not show a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P=.808).

Conclusion: The accuracy of the intraoral scanners was dependent on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch, but the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch had no effect on the accuracy of the desktop scanner. Additionally, depending on the type of intraoral scanners, the accuracy differed according to the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch.

Keywords: Accuracy; Complete arch; Dimension; Intraoral scanner.

© 2020 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics.

Figures

Fig. 1. CAD reference models according to…
Fig. 1. CAD reference models according to the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch.
Fig. 2. Strategies of complete arch scanning.…
Fig. 2. Strategies of complete arch scanning. (A) First scanning procedure from “Start a” to opposite canine (1 to 5), (B) Second scanning procedure from “Start b” to opposite second molar (6 to 10).
Fig. 3. Three-dimensional analysis procedure. (A) Tooth…
Fig. 3. Three-dimensional analysis procedure. (A) Tooth segmentation of CAD reference model (CRM), (B) CAD test model (CTM), (C) Superimposition of CRM and CTM, (D) Color difference map by 3D analysis.
Fig. 4. Comparison of RMS values according…
Fig. 4. Comparison of RMS values according to volumetric dimensions of complete arch and scanner type.
Fig. 5. Comparison of color difference map…
Fig. 5. Comparison of color difference map according to volumetric dimensions of complete arch and scanner type. (A) Desktop, (B) CS3600, (C) Trios3, (D) i500.

References

    1. Park JM, Kim RJ, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:113–120.
    1. Braian M, Wennerberg A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122:129–136.
    1. Park GH, Son K, Lee KB. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:803–810.
    1. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115:313–320.
    1. Duret F, Blouin JL, Duret B. CAD-CAM in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988;117:715–720.
    1. Arezoobakhsh A, Shayegh SS, Jamali Ghomi A, Hakimaneh SMR. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:105–112.
    1. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascón W, Zandinejad A, Özcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:372–378.
    1. Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascón W, Zandinejad A, Özcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Intraoral digital scans: Part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:575–580.
    1. Al Hamad KQ. Learning curve of intraoral scanning by prosthodontic residents. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:277–283.
    1. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:225–232.
    1. Park HN, Lim YJ, Yi WJ, Han JS, Lee SP. A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10:58–64.
    1. 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;124:581–588.
    1. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps A I. Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:811–820.
    1. 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;112:1461–1471.
    1. 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;18:27.
    1. Chiu A, Chen YW, Hayashi J, Sadr A. Accuracy of CAD/CAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters. Sensors (Basel) 2020;20:1157
    1. 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;29:518–523.
    1. Koulivand S, Ghodsi S, Siadat H, Alikhasi M. A clinical comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques regarding finish line locations and impression time. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;32:236–243.
    1. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:554–559.
    1. Sami T, Goldstein G, Vafiadis D, Absher T. An in vitro 3D evaluation of the accuracy of 4 intraoral optical scanners on a 6-implant model. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:748–754.
    1. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22:11–19.
    1. Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:755–760.
    1. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118:36–42.
    1. Camardella LT, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78:211–220.
    1. 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. 2017;78:466–471.
    1. Uhm SH, Kim JH, Jiang HB, Woo CW, Chang M, Kim KN, Bae JM, Oh S. Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard. Dent Mater J. 2017;36:27–34.
    1. Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:574–579.
    1. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145:1133–1140.
    1. Persson AS, Andersson M, Odén A, Sandborgh-Englund G. Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1123–1130.
    1. Kaindl K, Steipe B. Metric properties of the root-mean-square deviation of vector sets. Acta Crystallogr A. 1997;53:809
    1. Bu X, Khalaf K, Hobson RS. Dental arch dimensions in oligodontia patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:768–772.
    1. Dung TM, Ngoc VT, Hiep NH, Khoi TD, Van Xiem V, Chu-Dinh T, Bac ND. Evaluation of dental arch dimensions in 12 year-old Vietnamese children-A cross-sectional study of 4565 subjects. Sci Rep. 2019;9:1–7.
    1. Yzquierdo-Correa C, Portocarrero-Reyes W, Carruitero MJ, Claudet-Angulo P. Dental arch width in overweight and normal-weight subjects. J Dent Res. 2019;8:9–12.
    1. Haque F, Alam MK. Tooth size dimension norms and sexual disparities for various populations: An overview. Int Med J. 2017;24:272–274.
    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.
    1. ISO 12836. Dentistry-Digitizing devices for CAD/CAM systems for indirect dental restorations-Test methods for assessing accuracy. Geneva; Switzerland: International Standards Organization (ISO); 2015. [Accessed July 31, 2018]. Available at: .
    1. Son K, Lee KB. Effect of tooth types on the accuracy of dental 3d scanners: An in vitro study. Materials (Basel) 2020;13:1744

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren