Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis

Martin Schimmel, Norio Akino, Murali Srinivasan, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben, Burak Yilmaz, Samir Abou-Ayash, Martin Schimmel, Norio Akino, Murali Srinivasan, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben, Burak Yilmaz, Samir Abou-Ayash

Abstract

Objectives: New generation intraoral scanners are promoted to be suitable for digital scans of long-span edentulous spaces and completely edentulous arches; however, the evidence is lacking. The current study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) in partially and completely edentulous arch models and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy.

Materials and methods: Four different resin models (completely and partially edentulous maxilla and mandible) were scanned, using a new generation IOS device (n = 20 each). Ten scans of each model were performed by an IOS-experienced and an inexperienced operator. An industrial high-precision scanner was employed to obtain reference scans. IOS files of each model-operator combination, their respective reference scan files (n = 10 each; total = 80), as well as the IOS files from each model generated by the same operator, were superimposed (n = 45; total = 360) to calculate trueness and precision. An ANOVA for mixed models and post hoc t tests for mixed models were used to assess group-wise differences (α = 0.05).

Results: The median overall trueness and precision were 24.2 μm (IQR 20.7-27.4 μm) and 18.3 μm (IQR 14.4-22.1 μm), respectively. The scans of the inexperienced operator had significantly higher trueness in the edentulous mandibular model (p = 0.0001) and higher precision in the edentulous maxillary model (p = 0.0004).

Conclusion: The accuracy of IOS for partially and completely edentulous arches in in vitro settings was high. Experience with IOS had small influence on the accuracy of the scans.

Clinical relevance: IOS with the tested new generation intraoral scanner may be suitable for the fabrication of removable dentures regardless of clinician's experience in IOS.

Keywords: Accuracy; Digital impression; Intraoral scanning; Precision; Scan time; Trueness.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
a Partially edentulous maxillary, b partially edentulous mandibular, c completely edentulous maxillary, and d completely edentulous mandibular model
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Region of interest digitally transferred from reference scan to a representative digital scan of each type of model. a Partially edentulous maxillary. b Partially edentulous mandibular. c Completely edentulous maxillary. d Completely edentulous mandibular model
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Trueness: logarithm of absolute deviations (LADs; y-axis), separated for two operators (experienced vs. inexperienced), and different types of models (ManC = mandible completely edentulous, ManP = mandible partially edentulous, MaxC = maxilla completely edentulous, maxilla = partially edentulous)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Representative heatmaps after superimposing STL data of intraoral and the reference scans. a Partially edentulous maxillary. b Partially edentulous mandibular. c Completely edentulous maxillary. d Completely edentulous mandibular model
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Precision: logarithm of absolute deviations (LADs; y-axis), separated for two operators (experienced vs. inexperienced), and different types of models (ManC = mandible completely edentulous, ManP = mandible partially edentulous, MaxC = maxilla completely edentulous, maxilla = partially edentulous)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Scan time: logarithm of scan time in (LSTm; y-axis), separated for the two operators (experienced vs. inexperienced), and the different types of models (ManC = mandible completely edentulous, ManP = mandible partially edentulous, MaxC = maxilla completely edentulous, maxilla = partially edentulous)

References

    1. Gross D, Gross K, Wilhelmy S. Digitalization in dentistry: ethical challenges and implications. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:830–838.
    1. Hancocks S. What is digital about dentistry? Br Dent J. 2017;223:305. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.732.
    1. Rekow D. Computer-aided design and manufacturing in dentistry: a review of the state of the art. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;58:512–516. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90285-X.
    1. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:149. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x.
    1. Rödiger M, Heinitz A, Bürgers R, Rinke S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:579–587. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1924-y.
    1. Güth J-F, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:1445–1455. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4.
    1. 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;29:374–392. doi: 10.1111/clr.13273.
    1. 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;30:617–626. doi: 10.1111/clr.13447.
    1. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1318–1323. doi: 10.1111/clr.12982.
    1. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J. 2018;12:118–124. doi: 10.2174/1874210601812010118.
    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. doi: 10.1007/s00056-017-0103-3.
    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. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont. 2018;27:35–41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527.
    1. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM (2020) Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 123:96-104
    1. Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flügge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D, Bohner L, Bornstein M, Burgoyne A, Caram S, Carmichael R, Chen CY, Coucke W, Derksen W, Donos N, el Kholy K, Evans C, Fehmer V, Fickl S, Fragola G, Gimenez Gonzales B, Gholami H, Hashim D, Hui Y, Kökat A, Vazouras K, Kühl S, Lanis A, Leesungbok R, Meer J, Liu Z, Sato T, de Souza A, Scarfe WC, Tosta M, Zyl P, Vach K, Vaughn V, Vucetic M, Wang P, Wen B, Wu V. Group 5 ITI consensus report : digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:436–442. doi: 10.1111/clr.13309.
    1. Patzelt SBM, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144:914–920. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209.
    1. Srinivasan M, Kalberer N, Naharro M, Marchand L, Lee H, Müller F (2020)CAD-CAM milled dentures: The Geneva protocols for digital dentures J Prosthet Dent 123:27–37
    1. Lo Russo L, Salamini A. Removable complete digital dentures: a workflow that integrates open technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:727–732. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.06.019.
    1. Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M, Schimmel M, Abou-Ayash S (2020) A digital cast-free clinical workflow for oral rehabilitation with removable partial dentures: A dental technique. J Prosthet Dent 123:680–685
    1. Goodacre B, Goodacre C. Using intraoral scanning to fabricate complete dentures: first experiences. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31:166–170. doi: 10.11607/ijp.5624.
    1. Kattadiyil MT, Mursic Z, AlRumaih H, Goodacre CJ. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:444–448. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.022.
    1. Fang J-H, An X, Jeong S-M, Choi B-H. Digital intraoral scanning technique for edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:733–735. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.008.
    1. Chebib N, Kalberer N, Srinivasan M, Maniewicz S, Perneger T, Müller F. Edentulous jaw impression techniques: an in vivo comparison of trueness. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:623–630. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.016.
    1. 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;47:343–349.
    1. Keul C, Güth JF (2020) Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 24:735–745
    1. Sun LJ, Lee JS, Choo HH, Hwang HS, Lee KM. Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: a comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018;154:305–310. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.09.022.
    1. Steinmassl O, Dumfahrt H, Grunert I, Steinmassl P-A. CAD/CAM produces dentures with improved fit. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:2829–2835. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2369-2.
    1. Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ, Kattadiyil MT. Comparison of denture base adaptation between CAD-CAM and conventional fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:249–256. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.02.017.
    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. Marghalani A, Weber H-P, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.002.
    1. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen C-J, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:465–472. doi: 10.1111/clr.12567.
    1. Singh K, Sahoo S, Prasad KD, Goel M, Singh A. Effect of different impression techniques on the dimensional accuracy of impressions using various elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13:98–106. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1102.
    1. Matsuda T, Goto T, Kurahashi K, Kashiwabara T, Watanabe M, Tomotake Y, Nagao K, Ichikawa T. Digital assessment of preliminary impression accuracy for edentulous jaws: Comparisons of 3-dimensional surfaces between study and working casts. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60:206–212. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.12.007.
    1. Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(Suppl 1):101–120.
    1. Osnes CA, Wu JH, Venezia P, Ferrari M, Keeling AJ (2020) Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res 64:6–11
    1. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:221–230. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere