Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Complete-arch digital scans are becoming popular as digital dentistry is adopted for expanded clinical situations such as complete-arch prostheses, removable prostheses, extensive implant-supported treatment, and orthodontic aligners. Whether the scan pattern technique affects the trueness and precision of complete-arch scans and whether differences in accuracy exist among different scanners remain unclear. Furthermore, each manufacturer recommends a different scan pattern, but evidence of the superiority of the manufacturer's recommended pattern is lacking. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine whether the scan pattern affects the trueness, precision, and speed of complete-arch digital scans performed by using 4 different digital scanning systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS A custom model used as the reference standard was fabricated with teeth having the same refractive index as dentin and enamel to simulate the natural dentition. The scan of the custom typodont was obtained by using an ATOS III Triple Scan 3D optical scanner. This study evaluated the CEREC Omnicam, Planmeca Emerald, Align iTero Element, and 3Shape TRIOS 3. Experimental scans were obtained from each of the 4 different digital scanning systems by using 4 unique scan patterns by experienced clinicians. Four experimental scans were acquired from each of the scanners by using 4 distinct scan patterns for a total of 16 scans for each scanner. Scan patterns 1 to 4 were based on the operator manuals for each different scanner. The scan time was recorded for each scan. All experimental scans were converted to standard tessellation language (STL) format, and a comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. RESULTS For trueness, the scanner (P<.001), scan pattern (P=.001), and their interaction (P<.001) were found to be significant. Overall, scan pattern 2 showed the highest average trueness and precision. Likewise, for overall scan pattern precision, the scanner, scan pattern, and their interaction were found to be significant (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Scan pattern affected trueness and precision for some scanners, but not for others. Differences exist in the complete-arch scan speed, trueness, and precision of individual scanners. Scan pattern can play an important role in the success of digital scanning.

[1]  T. Joyce,et al.  Validation of an optical system to measure acetabular shell deformation in cadavers , 2014, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[2]  Francesco Pera,et al.  Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure , 2018, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[3]  A Ender,et al.  Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. , 2013, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[4]  Josef Schweiger,et al.  A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[5]  Mark Ludlow,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3‐dimensional comparisons , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  L. Franchi,et al.  Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. , 2016, European journal of orthodontics.

[7]  U. Brägger,et al.  Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  Neal D Kravitz,et al.  Intraoral digital scanners. , 2014, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[9]  C. Flores‐Mir,et al.  Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. , 2016, European journal of orthodontics.

[10]  T. Joda,et al.  Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  Bennamoun,et al.  Impact of digital prosthodontic planning on dental esthetics: Biometric analysis of esthetic parameters. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  F. Pera,et al.  Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation. , 2018, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[13]  L. Bohner,et al.  Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[14]  Albert Mehl,et al.  Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  K. Tandecka,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes , 2014, Head & Face Medicine.

[16]  Marlis Eichberger,et al.  Accuracy of digitally fabricated trial dentures , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  Anthony S Mennito,et al.  Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems , 2018, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[18]  Chikahiro Ohkubo,et al.  Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. , 2018, Journal of oral science.

[19]  Kyu-Bok Lee,et al.  Effect of Tooth Types on the Accuracy of Dental 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study , 2020, Materials.

[20]  M. Finkelman,et al.  Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  L. Levrini,et al.  Invisalign ClinCheck and the Aesthetic Digital Smile Design Protocol. , 2015, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[22]  Hae-Young Kim,et al.  Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. , 2019, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[23]  G. Veronesi,et al.  Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study , 2016, PloS one.

[24]  Kok-Lim Low Linear Least-Squares Optimization for Point-to-Plane ICP Surface Registration , 2004 .

[25]  Mantas Vaitiekūnas,et al.  Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. , 2017, European journal of oral implantology.

[26]  J. Katsoulis,et al.  Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. , 2016, Quintessence international.

[27]  S. Buduru,et al.  Occlusion in the digital era: a report on 3 cases , 2019, Medicine and pharmacy reports.

[28]  Anthony S Mennito,et al.  Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method , 2020, BMC Oral Health.

[29]  S. Heo,et al.  Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[30]  Hyung-In Yoon,et al.  Repeatability of Intraoral Scanners for Complete Arch Scan of Partially Edentulous Dentitions: An In Vitro Study , 2019, Journal of clinical medicine.

[31]  Vito Renó,et al.  A Modified Iterative Closest Point Algorithm for 3D Point Cloud Registration , 2016, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..