Abstract
Statement of problem
The accuracy of intraoral and extraoral scanners for different models of edentulousness
is unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro evaluation was to determine the accuracy (trueness and
precision) of complete-arch scans made by 3 intraoral and 1 extraoral scanners compared
with an industrial 3D scanner.
Material and methods
Digital scans were made of a reference cast with 3 intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam;
Dentsply Sirona, TRIOS 3; 3shape A/S; Carestream CS 3600; Carestream Dental) and an
extraoral scanner (Deluxe scanner; Open Technologies). A dental maxilla model was
used for tooth preparation for ceramic restorations with a shoulder finishing line.
Maxillary right central and lateral incisors and third molar and maxillary left second
premolar and first and third molar teeth were removed. One operator scanned the reference
cast 10 times with each scanner. All the recorded standard tessellation language (STL) files
were imported into an inspection software program and individually overlaid on the
STL file for the reference model made by the 3D scanner. The measured distance between
the distal point of the maxillary left second molar tooth and the mesial point of
the maxillary left first premolar was defined as distance 1; distance 2 was defined
as the distance between the mesial point of the maxillary second molar tooth and the
distal point of the maxillary right first premolar tooth. The Levene test for homoscedasticity
of variances was used to evaluate precision, and a 2-way repeated-measures ANOVA and
Bonferroni-corrected Student t tests were used to evaluate trueness (α=.05).
Results
A statistically significant difference was found between the Carestream scanner and
the other scanners when scanning both mucosa and teeth. The Carestream scanner had
the lowest accuracy and highest magnitude mean deviation of all the scanners.
Conclusions
Obtaining an accurate partial-arch impression is still challenging for some intraoral
scanners. The Carestream scanner’s trueness was outside the acceptable range. However,
other scanners tested here appeared to be suitable alternatives to conventional impression
techniques.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry.World J Radiol. 2014; 6: 794
- Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 186-194
- Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 447-54
- Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 755-761
- Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 648-653
- Functionally suitable digital removable complete dentures: a dental technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 795-799
- Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1430-1435
- Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-115
- Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 10
- An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 420-423
- Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 310-315
- Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1360-1367
- Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 617-623
- Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners.J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 450-459
- Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1201-1208
- Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 92
- Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 811-820
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions—an in vitro study.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15: 1599
- Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study.J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 59: 236-242
- Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.Int J Comput Dent. 2011; 14: 11-21
- 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
- Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression.Int J Comput Dent. 2005; 8: 283-294
- Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera.Int J Comput Dent. 2009; 12: 11-28
- Comparative analysis on measuring performances of dental intraoral and extraoral optical 3D digitization systems.Measurement. 2014; 47: 45-53
- Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 105-112
- Marginal adaptation of titanium frameworks produced by CAD-CAM techniques.Int J Prosthodont. 1997; 10: 541-546
- Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 184-190
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
- Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws.J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144: 914-920
- Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD-CAM system and the finish line design.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 155-162
- ISO 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - part 1: general principles and definitions.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva1994 (Available at:)
- Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
- Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow.Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1759-1764
- Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling.J Dent. 2010; 38: 553-559
- Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions.Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 799-806
- Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 382-8
- Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD-CAM systems–an in vitro study.J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 177-184
- ANSI/ADA132:2015. Scanning accuracy of dental chair side and laboratory CAD/CAM systems.American Dental Association, Chicago2015 (Available at:)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 15, 2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
