Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis

Intraoral three-dimensional imaging has gained great interest in dentistry as a mean to generate risk-free imprints of the oral cavity. Accurate intraoral models facilitate proper diagnosis, growth assessment, outcome evaluation, and 3D printing applications. Here, in an actual clinical setup on 12 subjects, we evaluate the trueness and precision of two widely used intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, 3Shape and CS 3600, Carestream), using an industrial scanner (Artec Space Spider) as a reference. Surface based matching was implemented using the iterative closest point algorithm (ICP). Trueness of the intraoral scans was analyzed by measuring their distance from the reference scan, in the upper buccal front area. Precision was tested through the distance of repeated scans regarding the whole dental arch, following superimpositions in the buccal front and in the whole dental arch area. TRIOS 3 displayed slightly higher precision (approximately 10 μm) compared to CS 3600, only after superimposition on the whole dental arch (p < 0.05). Both intraoral scanners showed good performance and comparable trueness (median: 0.0154 mm; p> 0.05). However, in individual cases and in various, not spatially defined areas, higher imprecision was evident. Thus, the intraoral scanners’ appropriateness for highly demanding, spatially extended clinical applications remains questionable.

[1]  Paul Seelbach,et al.  Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow , 2012, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[2]  Nikolaos Gkantidis,et al.  The effect of regular dental cast artifacts on the 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental models , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[3]  T. Attin,et al.  In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions , 2016, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[4]  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.

[5]  R. Nedelcua,et al.  Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions : A novel in vivo analysis method , 2018 .

[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]  Paul J. Besl,et al.  A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes , 1992, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[8]  Robert C. Wolpert,et al.  A Review of the , 1985 .

[9]  Y. Xiong,et al.  Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions for Whole Upper Jaws, Including Full Dentitions and Palatal Soft Tissues , 2016, PloS one.

[10]  Andrea Deregibus,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: A systematic review. , 2016, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[11]  N. Gkantidis,et al.  Assessment of techniques used for superimposition of maxillary and mandibular 3D surface models to evaluate tooth movement: a systematic review. , 2019, European journal of orthodontics.

[12]  I. El-Sayed,et al.  Construction of Neuroanatomical Volumetric Models Using 3D Scanning Techniques: Technical Note and Applications. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[13]  I. Nyström,et al.  Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison , 2018, BMC Oral Health.

[14]  Björn Ludwig,et al.  Evaluation of 3-Dimensional Superimposition Techniques on Various Skeletal Structures of the Head Using Surface Models , 2015, PloS one.

[15]  F. Carinci,et al.  E FFECTS OF LIGHT - EMITTING DIODE ( LED 640 NM ) ON HUMAN GINGIVAL FIBROBLASTS : A COMPARATIVE IN VITRO STUDY , 2017 .

[16]  Kyung-Min Lee,et al.  Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: A comparison between in‐vivo and ex‐vivo scans , 2018, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[17]  S. Logozzo,et al.  Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study , 2017, BMC Oral Health.

[18]  B. Wöstmann,et al.  A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. , 2016, Journal of dentistry.

[19]  T. Attin,et al.  In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  D. Halazonetis,et al.  Early anterior crossbite correction through posterior bite opening: a 3D superimposition prospective cohort study , 2018, European journal of orthodontics.

[21]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[22]  Aishwarya Bhargav,et al.  Applications of additive manufacturing in dentistry: A review. , 2018, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.