Computerized Casts for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time, and Patient Feedback

Introduction Intraoral scanners allow direct images of oral situation, with fewer steps than conventional impressions. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions, traditional impressions, and digitalization of full-arch gypsum models, to evaluate timing of different methods and finally to study perception of patients about conventional and digital impression techniques. Methods Dental arches of fourteen patients were evaluated by alginate impression, titanium dioxide powder-free intraoral scanning (Trios, 3Shape), and digitalization obtained from gypsum models using the same scanner. Conventional and digital techniques were evaluated through measurements (lower and upper arch anteroposterior length, lower and upper intercanine distance, and lower and upper intermolar distance) with a caliber for analogic models and using a computer software for digital models (Ortho Analyzer, Great Lakes Orthodontics). In addition, chairside and processing times were recorded. Finally, each patient completed a VAS questionnaire to evaluate comfort. Statistical analyses were performed with ANOVA and Tukey tests for accuracy measurements and paired t-test for times and VAS scores. Significance was predetermined at P < 0.05. Results The measurements obtained with intraoral scanning, gypsum models after conventional impression, and digitalized gypsum models were not significantly different. Both chairside and processing times of digital scanning were shorter than the traditional method. VAS reporting patients comfort were significantly higher when evaluating digital impression. Conclusions Intraoral scanners used for orthodontic applications provide useful data in clinical practice, comparable to conventional impression. This technology is more time efficient than traditional impression and comfortable for patients. Further evolution with more accurate and faster scanners could in future replace traditional impression methods.

[1]  M. F. Sfondrini,et al.  Effect of light-tip distance on the shear bond strengths of resin-modified glass ionomer cured with high-intensity halogen, light-emitting diode, and plasma arc lights. , 2006, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[2]  Jorge Garaicoa,et al.  Dental Impression Materials and Techniques. , 2017, Dental clinics of North America.

[3]  A. Sodagar,et al.  Software Design for Smile Analysis , 2010, Journal of dentistry.

[4]  M. F. Sfondrini,et al.  Sella turcica bridging and dental anomalies: is there an association? , 2017, International journal of paediatric dentistry.

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

[6]  T. Grünheid,et al.  Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. , 2014, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[7]  Fan Zhang,et al.  Validity of Intraoral Scans Compared with Plaster Models: An In-Vivo Comparison of Dental Measurements and 3D Surface Analysis , 2016, PloS one.

[8]  Jack L Ferracane,et al.  Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. , 2010, Operative dentistry.

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

[10]  Anders P. G. Sjögren,et al.  Orthodontic Study Cast Analysis—Reproducibility of Recordings and Agreement Between Conventional and 3D Virtual Measurements , 2010, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[11]  M. Ferrari,et al.  The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review , 2017, BMC oral health.

[12]  B. Wöstmann,et al.  Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[13]  Abdullah M Aldrees Do customized orthodontic appliances and vibration devices provide more efficient treatment than conventional methods? , 2016, Korean journal of orthodontics.

[14]  James Mah,et al.  Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. , 2017, Quintessence international.

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

[16]  M. F. Sfondrini,et al.  Shear bond strength of self-ligating brackets. , 2011, European journal of orthodontics.

[17]  A. Mehl,et al.  In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. , 2015, Quintessence international.

[18]  M. F. Sfondrini,et al.  Plasma arc versus halogen light-curing of adhesive-precoated orthodontic brackets: a 12-month clinical study of bond failures. , 2004, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  G. Lecocq Digital impression-taking: Fundamentals and benefits in orthodontics. , 2016, International orthodontics.

[20]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: A comparative study in young patients. , 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.

[21]  Albert Mehl,et al.  Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo , 2017, Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie.

[22]  M. F. Sfondrini,et al.  A 15-month evaluation of bond failures of orthodontic brackets bonded with direct versus indirect bonding technique: a clinical trial , 2014, Progress in Orthodontics.

[23]  Y. Chun,et al.  A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction , 2016, Korean journal of orthodontics.

[24]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. , 2013, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[25]  Stefan Wolfart,et al.  The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow—the comparison of two systems , 2013, Clinical Oral Investigations.

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

[27]  Daniel Edelhoff,et al.  Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization , 2016, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[28]  H. Yatani,et al.  Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[29]  A. Johal,et al.  Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. , 2011, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[30]  M. F. Sfondrini,et al.  The Influence of No-Primer Adhesives and Anchor Pylons Bracket Bases on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets , 2013, BioMed research international.

[31]  Daniel Edelhoff,et al.  Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing , 2012, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[32]  A F Ayoub,et al.  Assessment of the Accuracy of a Three-Dimensional Imaging System for Archiving Dental Study Models , 2003, Journal of orthodontics.