Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Costa, A.J.M.; Teixeira Neto, A.D.; Burgoa, S.; Gutierrez, V.; Cortes, A.R.G. Fully Digital Workflow with Magnetically Connected Guides for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation Following Guided Alveolar Ridge Reduction. J. Prosthodont. 2020, 29, 272–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pinhata-Baptista, O.H.; Kim, J.H.; Choi, I.G.G.; Tateno, R.Y.; Costa, C.; Cortes, A.R.G. Full digital workflow for anterior immediate implants using custom abutments. J. Oral Implantol. 2021, 47, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teixeira Neto, A.D.; Costa, A.J.M.; Choi, I.G.G.; Santos, A.; Santos, J.F.D.; Cortes, A.R.G. Digital workflow for full-arch implant-supported prosthesis based on intraoral scans of a relative of the patient. J. Oral Implantol. 2021, 47, 68–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Costa, A.J.M.E.; Burgoa, S.; Pinhata-Baptista, O.H.; Gutierrez, V.; Cortes, A.R.G. Digital workflow for image-guided immediate implant placement by using the socket-shield technique and custom abutment in the esthetic area. J. Prosthet Dent. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinhata-Baptista, O.H.; Gonçalves, R.N.; Gialain, I.O.; Cavalcanti, M.G.P.; Tateno, R.Y.; Cortes, A.R.G. Three dimensionally printed surgical guides for removing fixation screws from onlay bone grafts in flapless implant surgeries. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 123, 791–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gialain, I.O.; Pinhata-Baptista, O.H.; Cavalcanti, M.G.P.; Cortes, A.R.G. Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Milling of Allogeneic Blocks Following Three-Dimensional Maxillofacial Graft Planning. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019, 30, e413–e415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nishimura, D.A.; Iida, C.; Carneiro, A.L.E.; Arita, E.S.; Costa, C.; Cortes, A.R.G. Digital workflow for alveolar ridge preservation with equine-derived bone graft and subsequent implant rehabilitation: A case report. J. Oral Implantol. 2021, 47, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Passos, L.; Soares, F.P.; Choi, I.G.G.; Cortes, A.R.G. Full digital workflow for crown lengthening by using a single surgical guide. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 124, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- No-Cortes, J.; Ayres, A.P.; Lima, J.F.; Markarian, R.A.; Attard, N.J.; Cortes, A.R.G. Trueness, 3D Deviation, Time and Cost Comparisons Between Milled and 3D-Printed Resin Single Crowns. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2021, 30, 107–112. [Google Scholar]
- No-Cortes, J.; Son, A.; Ayres, A.P.; Markarian, R.A.; Attard, N.J.; Cortes, A.R.G. Effect of varying levels of expertise on the reliability and reproducibility of the digital waxing of single crowns: A preliminary in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 127, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markarian, R.A.; Vasconcelos, E.; Kim, J.H.; Cortes, A.R.G. Influence of Gingival Contour on Marginal Fit of CAD-CAM Zirconia Copings on Implant Stock Abutments. Eur. J. Prosthodont Restor. Dent. 2021, 29, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Markarian, R.A.; Vasconcelos, E.; Kim, J.H.; Attard, N.J.; Cortes, A.R.G. Effect of different milling devices on marginal fit of cad-cam zirconia copings on implant stock abutments. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morsy, N.; El Kateb, M.; Azer, A.; Fathalla, S. Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nedelcu, R.; Olsson, P.; Nystrom, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carbajal Mejía, J.B.; Wakabayashi, K.; Nakamura, T.; Yatani, H. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 118, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, A.; Klussmann, L.; Wöstmann, B.; Schlenz, M.A. Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- OpenGrey.eu [Internet]. Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex: System for information on Grey Literature in Europe. Available online: http://www.opengrey.eu (accessed on 23 January 2018).
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashraf, Y.; Sabet, A.; Hamdy, A.; Ebeid, K. Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners. J. Prosthodont. 2020, 29, 800–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.H.; Son, S.A.; Lee, H.; Yoo, Y.J.; Hong, S.J.; Park, J.K. Influence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems for class II inlay preparation. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radeke, J.; Vogel, A.B.; Schmidt, F.; Kilic, F.; Repky, S.; Beyersmann, J.; Lapatki, B.G. Trueness of full-arch IO scans estimated based on 3D translational and rotational deviations of single teeth-an in vitro study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022, 26, 3273–3286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Resende, C.C.D.; Barbosa, T.A.Q.; Moura, G.F.; Tavares, L.D.N.; Rizzante, F.A.P.; George, F.M.; Neves, F.D.D.; Mendonça, G. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kontis, P.; Güth, J.F.; Schubert, O.; Keul, C. Accuracy of intraoral scans of edentulous jaws with different generations of intraoral scanners compared to laboratory scans. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2021, 13, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kernen, F.; Schlager, S.; Seidel Alvarez, V.; Mehrhof, J.; Vach, K.; Kohal, R.; Nelson, K.; Flügge, T. Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Revilla-León, M.; Quesada-Olmo, N.; Gómez-Polo, M.; Sicilia, E.; Farjas-Abadia, M.; Kois, J.C. Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study. J. Dent. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kontis, P.; Güth, J.F.; Keul, C. Accuracy of full-arch digitalization for partially edentulous jaws—A laboratory study on basis of coordinate-based data analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022; in press. [Google Scholar]
- Revilla-León, M.; Sicilia, E.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Gómez-Polo, M.; Kois, J.C. Clinical evaluation of the effects of cutting off, overlapping, and rescanning procedures on intraoral scanning accuracy. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohner, L.; Gamba, D.D.; Hanisch, M.; Marcio, B.S.; Tortamano Neto, P.; Laganá, D.C.; Sesma, N. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortes, A.R.G. Digital Dentistry: A Step-by-Step Guide and Case Atlas, 1st ed.; Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 281–285. [Google Scholar]
- Passos, L.; Meiga, S.; Brigagão, V.; Street, A. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: An in vitro study. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2019, 22, 307–319. [Google Scholar]
Study | Study/Scan Type | Main Comparisons | Variables Compared | Best Trueness | Reference Scan | Significant Factors * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ashraf et al. (2020) [19] | In vitro/ crown and inlay preparations | IOS devices | Trios (3Shape A/S) vs. Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) vs. i500 (Medit) | Trios | Ineos X5 | IOS device, preparation type and preparation angles |
Preparation types | Intra-coronal vs. Extra-coronal | Extra-coronal | ||||
Kim et al. (2021) [20] | In vitro/inlay preparations | IOS devices | Trios 3 (3Shape A/S) vs. Primescan (Dentsply-Sirona) vs. i500 (Medit) | Primescan | 3Shape E3 | IOS device, presence of adjacent teeth |
Adjacent teeth | Present vs. Absent | Absent | ||||
Radeke et al. (2021) [21] | In vitro/ dental arches | Types of tooth position | Normal dental arch vs. Anterior crowding vs. Flared incisors | None | Breuckmann dStation3D | None |
Operators | Dentists vs. Non-graduate | None | ||||
Resende et al. (2021) [22] | In vitro/ crown preparations and dental arches | IOS devices | Trios 3 (3Shape A/S) vs. Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) | Trios 3 for preparations | 3Shape D2000 | IOS device, scan size, operator’s experience |
Operators’ experience | High vs. Medium vs. Low | High | ||||
Kontis et al. (2021) [23] | In vitro/ edentulous arch | IOS devices | Primescan vs. Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) | Primescan | InfiniteFocusG5 Alicona Imaging GmbH | IOS device |
Kernen et al. (2021) [24] | In vivo/ dental arches | IOS devices | Trios 3 (3Shape) vs. Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) vs. True Definition (3 M) | Trios 3 | Zirkonzahn S600 Arti | IOS device, span length |
Span | Short vs. Long | Short | ||||
Revilla-León et al. (2021) [25] | In vivo/ partial dental arch | Number of mesh holes | 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 holes | 1 hole | 3Shape, Trios 4 | Mesh holes Rescanning |
Mesh hole diameter | 2 vs. 4 vs. 6 mm | 2 mm | ||||
Kontis et al. (2022) [26] | In vitro/ dental arches | IOS devices | Primescan vs. Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) | Primescan (x- and z-axes); Omnicam (y-axis) | Mitutoyo Crysta Apex C754 (measurements) | IOS device, span disposition |
Span disposition | Different span locations | Anterior or no span | ||||
Revilla-León et al. (2022) [27] | In vivo/partial dental arch | Strategy for rescanning mesh holes | With vs. Without overlapping | Without overlapping | 3Shape, Trios 4 | Overlapping scans |
Study | IOS | Categories | Mean ± SD Trueness (μm) | Mean ± SD Precision (μm) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ashraf et al. (2020) [19] | Trios (3Shape A/S) | Preparations | 37.70 ± 14.12 | 44.7 ± 32 |
Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) | 57.83 ± 22.14 | 72.0 ± 521 | ||
i500 (Medit) | 44.31 ± 11.41 | 45.3 ± 32 | ||
Kim et al. (2021) [20] | Trios 3 (3Shape A/S) | Without adjacent tooth | 10.35 ± 0.22 | 4.95 ± 0.30 |
With adjacent tooth | 11.61 ± 0.91 | 6.20 ± 0.86 | ||
Primescan (Dentsply-Sirona) | Without adjacent tooth | 7.44 ± 0.17 | 3.74 ± 0.60 | |
With adjacent tooth | 10.67 ± 0.96 | 4.21 ± 1.07 | ||
i500 (Medit) | Without adjacent tooth | 10.48 ± 0.34 | 3.98 ± 0.58 | |
With adjacent tooth | 11.69 ± 0.27 | 3.89 ± 0.49 | ||
Radeke et al. (2021) [21] | Trios 3 (3Shape A/S) | Dental arches | 114 | n/a |
Resende et al. (2020) [22] | Trios 3 (3Shape A/S) Complete Arch | High operator experience | 61 ± 17 | 73 ± 0.039 |
Medium operator experience | 58 ± 6 | 52 ± 37 | ||
Low operator experience | 74 ± 24 | 113 ± 57 | ||
Trios 3 (3Shape A/S) Prepared Arch | High operator experience | 31 ± 3 | 26 ± 0.43 | |
Medium operator experience | 33 ± 6 | 25 ± 17 | ||
Low operator experience | 34 ± 5 | 25 ± 15 | ||
Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) Complete Arch | High operator experience | 120 ±10 | 97 ± 19 | |
Medium operator experience | 135 ± 19 | 120 ± 61 | ||
Low operator experience | 121 ± 28 | 161 ± 121 | ||
Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) Prepared Arch | High operator experience | 71 ± 35 | 42 ± 19 | |
Medium operator experience | 58 ± 9 | 38 ± 47 | ||
Low operator experience | 82 ± 43 | 39 ± 18 | ||
Kernen et al. (2021) [24] | Trios 3 (3Shape) | Short span extraoral | 28 ± 120 | 22 ± 123 |
Short span intraoral | 38 ± 214 | 23 ± 125 | ||
Trios 3 (3Shape) | Long span extraoral | 132 ± 413 | 81 ± 421 | |
Long span intraoral | 147 ± 461 | 80 ± 281 | ||
Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) | Short span extraoral | 36 ± 146 | 23 ± 231 | |
Short span intraoral | 45 ± 190 | 43 ± 244 | ||
Omnicam (Dentsply-Sirona) | Long span extraoral | 118 ± 496 | 103 ± 626 | |
Long span intraoral | 198 ± 499 | 198 ± 538 | ||
True Definition (3M) | Short span extraoral | 40 ± 174 | 29 ± 129 | |
Short span intraoral | 47 ± 195 | 31 ± 179 | ||
True Definition (3M) | Long span extraoral | 581 ± 1387 | 165 ± 392 | |
Long span intraoral | 433 ± 1029 | 153 ± 448 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Cortes, A.R.G.; Agius, A.-M.; No-Cortes, J. Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6675. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136675
Cortes ARG, Agius A-M, No-Cortes J. Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(13):6675. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136675
Chicago/Turabian StyleCortes, Arthur Rodriguez Gonzalez, Anne-Marie Agius, and Juliana No-Cortes. 2022. "Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update" Applied Sciences 12, no. 13: 6675. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136675
APA StyleCortes, A. R. G., Agius, A. -M., & No-Cortes, J. (2022). Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update. Applied Sciences, 12(13), 6675. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136675