EVALUATION OF THE ACCURACY OF DIGITAL MODELS OBTAINED FROM INTRAORAL SCANNERS WITH DIFFERENT CAD/CAM SCANNING TECHNOLOGIES- AN IN VITRO STUDY | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 16, Volume 45, Issue 3, December 2020, Page 94-98 PDF (988.15 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.118538 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Passent S. Aly  1; Cherif A. Mohsen2
| ||||
| 1Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minia, Egypt. | ||||
| 2Professor, Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Minia, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: An accurate digital impression is essential in fabrication of fixed dental prostheses. Digital dental impressions are recorded either by intraoral or extraoral scanners. Intraoral scanners scan abutments inside oral cavity eliminating the need of fabrication of dental casts. The extraoral scanners scan physical impressions or dental casts to produce a digital model. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental models produced by two different intraoral scanners in relation to the reference cast. Materials and Methods: This in vitro study included an original typodont simulating patient’s mouth. The reference typodont model was scanned by two intraoral scanners (3shape, Dental Wings) to produce digital models from both scanners. Mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) measurements were recorded for canines, first premolars and first molars in both maxillary and mandibular jaws by same operator in the right and left sides and compared to measurements done on reference model. P values and adjusted means were calculated. Significance was set at 5%. SPSS version 22.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results: There was no significant difference found between the accuracies of 3shape and Dental Wings digital models (p-value = 0.97) which were <0.5mm, in comparison to the reference model. Regarding the reference teeth, the canine showed the highest accuracy (P< 0.0001). Conclusions: The accuracy of digital models produced by the two intraoral scanners was similar with a minor level of discrepancies. Also, the canine showed the highest accuracy in the scanning procedure as it possess smooth surface. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Digital model; CAD/CAM; Intraoral scanner, Digital impression | ||||
| References | ||||
|
1. Bentz RM, Balshi SF. Complete oral rehabilitation with implants using CAD/CAM technology, stereolithography, and conoscopic holography. Implant Dent. 2012;21:8–12.
2. El Kerdani T, Roushdy S. The Use of CAD/CAM Technology for Fabricating Cast Gold Survey Crowns under Existing Partial Removable Dental Prosthesis. A Clinical Report. J Prosthodont. 2017;26:321–6.
3. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis S, Cangialosi T. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:16.
4. González de Villaumbrosia P, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:543-50.
5. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1201-8.
6. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144:471-8.
7. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118:36-42.
8. Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B, et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24:85-94.
9. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:194-200.
10. Hewlett E, Orro M, Clark G. Accuracy testing of three-dimensional digitizing systems. Dent Mater 1992;8:49-53.
11. Hassan WN, Yusoff Y, Mardi NA. Comparison of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by 3-dimensional printing and conventional stone models with different degrees of crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;151:209-18
12. Hazeveld A, Slater JJ, Ren Y. Accuracy and reproducibility of dental replica models reconstructed by different rapid prototyping techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:108-15.
13. Bohner LOL, De Luca Canto G, Marció BS, Laganá DC, Sesma N, Tortamano Neto P. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118:617-23.
14. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions, an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
25. 26
15. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod. 2003;30:219–23.
16. Gracco A, Buranello M, Cozzani M, Siciliani G. Digital and plaster models: a comparison of measurements and times. Prog Orthod. 2007;8:252–9.
17. Wiranto MG, Engelbrecht WP, Tutein Nolthenius HE, van der Meer WJ, Ren Y. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143: 140-7.
18. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: A comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 304-10.
19. Mullen SR, Martin CA, Ngan P, Gladwin M. Accuracy of space analysis with e models and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:346–52.
20. Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:301–6.
21. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, et al. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010; 38:553-9.
22. Persson ASK, Andersson M, Odén A, Sandborgh-Englund G. Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology. Dent Mater. 2008;24:1123–30.
23. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144, 471-478.
24. Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wöstmann B et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2016;24, 85-94.
25. Güth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21,1445-55.
26. Im J, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Yu HS, and Hwang CJ. “Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases,” Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145:434-42.
27. Reuschl RP, Heuer W, Stiesch M, Wenzel D, and Dittmer MP. “Reliability and validity of measurements on digital study models and plaster models,” Eur J Orthod. 2016;38:22-6.
28. das Neves FD, do Prado CJ, Prudente MS, Carneiro TA, Zancope K, Davi LR, et al. Microcomputed tomography marginal fit evaluation of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing crowns with different methods of virtual model acquisition. Gen Dent 2015;63:39-42.
29. Alcan T, Ceylanoglu C, Baysal B. The relationship between digital model accuracy and time-dependent deformation of alginate impressions. Angle Orthod 2009;79:30-6.
30. Christensen G. Digital dentistry: Is this the future of dentistry? dental economics.com, 2011. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 476 PDF Download: 1,169 |
||||
