Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Limited information is available on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for scanning dentate and edentulous casts. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of 5 different IOS devices for scanning a dentate and an edentulous cast in a standardized way for short arches and complete arches. MATERIAL AND METHODS Five IOS devices were used to scan 2 computer metric measured casts using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). Both were scanned 15 times. All scans were carried out by 1 experienced operator in a standardized way. One cast was edentulous, and 1 was dentate. Five cylindrical landmarks were added to each cast. These cylinders made the measurement of point-to-point distances possible, dividing the tests into cross-arch measurements and intercylindrical (short-arch) measurements. The Student t test, Mann-Whitney test, and Levene test for equality were used to calculate the difference between the edentulous and dentate scans for both cross-arch and intercylindrical measurements (α=.05). RESULTS For the cross-arch measurements on the edentulous scans, the trueness values ranged between 6 μm (Emerald P1-P2) and 193 μm (Omnicam P1-P5) and for the intercylindrical measurements, between 2 μm (Itero P4-P5) and -103 μm (CS 3600 P1-P2). For the dentate cast, the cross-arch trueness values ranged between 6 μm (CS 3600 P1-P2) and 150 μm (TRIOS 3 P1-P5) and for the intercylindrical measurements, between 4 μm (Itero P4-P5) and -56 μm (Emerald P4-P5). CONCLUSIONS Significant differences were found in scanning edentulous and dentate scans for short arches and complete arches. Trueness for complete-arch scans were <193 μm for edentulous scans and <150 μm for dentate scans. Trueness for short-arch scans were <103 μm for edentulous scans and <56 μm for dentate scans.

[1]  Mohammad Moharrami,et al.  Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy: A Systematic Review , 2017, Implant dentistry.

[2]  M. Özcan,et al.  Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[3]  Sebastian B. M. Patzelt,et al.  Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners , 2014, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[4]  James Mah,et al.  Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral and extraoral scanners: an in vitro study using a new method of evaluation. , 2017, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[5]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Application of Intra-Oral Dental Scanners in the Digital Workflow of Implantology , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  H. De Bruyn,et al.  Tolerance measurements on internal- and external-hexagon implants. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  W. J. van der Meer,et al.  Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  Jian Sun,et al.  Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. , 2015, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[9]  Guillermo Pradies,et al.  Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[10]  C. Wyatt,et al.  A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  Wael Att,et al.  Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. , 2016, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[12]  Francisco Martínez-Rus,et al.  Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

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

[14]  June-Sung Shim,et al.  Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

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

[16]  P. Weigl,et al.  Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial , 2016, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[17]  R Nedelcu,et al.  Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. , 2017, Journal of dentistry.

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

[19]  Wael Att,et al.  Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. , 2013, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[20]  J. Güth,et al.  Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[21]  Francisco Martínez-Rus,et al.  Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. , 2015, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.