Abstract
Statement of problem
Studies evaluating the trueness of intraoral scanners (IOSs) at anatomic locations
within an intracoronal preparation are lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of digital scans obtained
by IOSs at the margin and intaglio surfaces of intracoronal preparations.
Material and methods
Six IOSs (CEREC Omnicam, E4D, FastScan, iTero, TRIOS, Zfx IntraScan) were used to
obtain digital scans of various intracoronal preparations. Standard tessellation language
(STL) data sets obtained from a reference scanner and each IOS were superimposed,
and the deviation of the digital casts was assessed at multiple measuring points along
the margin and intaglio surfaces of each preparation. The Kruskal–Wallis test and
multiple Mann–Whitney tests were used to detect differences in trueness (α=.05).
Results
The overall median trueness values were lowest for TRIOS (23.9 μm), followed by Zfx
IntraScan (24.6 μm), iTero (25.4 μm), FastScan (26.1 μm), CEREC Omnicam (26.9 μm),
and E4D (77.5 μm). The greatest deviation was generally observed at the line angles
between the preparation surfaces. The axiogingival line angle was the most error-prone
location in the cavity preparations. An increased tendency to produce a more accurate
impression was observed when the cavity had a greater width and more divergent walls.
Conclusions
The trueness of digital scans was influenced by the type of IOS and the location within
a prepared cavity. The trueness decreased at the line angles between the preparation
surfaces, particularly at the axiogingival line angle. Among the tested IOSs, E4D
produced the least accurate digital scans.
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
- Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18: 27
- Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 895-903
- Complete oral rehabilitation with implants using CAD/CAM technology, stereolithography, and conoscopic holography.Implant Dent. 2012; 21: 8-12
- 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: 321-326
- The use of computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology to aid in the reconstruction of congenitally deficient pediatric mandibles: a case series.Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 79: 2332-2342
- Fabricating complete dentures with CAD/CAM technology.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 351-355
- CAD/CAM technology for implant abutments, crowns, and superstructures.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 117-136
- ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: general principles and definitions.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva1994 (ISO Online browsing platform Available at:)
- Analysis on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: the effects of mandibular anterior interdental space.Appl Sci. 2017; 7: 719
- Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 113-120
- A comparative study of conventional versus digital impression taking in implant dentistry-a systematic review.J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2019; 8: 3362-3367
- Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 554-559
- Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study.Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 579-587
- An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems.J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 581-586
- Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 362-367
- Marginal gap, internal fit, and fracture load of leucite-reinforced ceramic inlays fabricated by CEREC inLab and hot-pressed techniques.J Prosthodont. 2011; 20: 535-540
- Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition.Oper Dent. 2004; 29: 481-508
- Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro.J Dent. 2014; 42: 677-683
- Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 392-399
- In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 543-550
- Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1461-1471
- In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
- Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 1445-1455
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.Int J Comput Dent. 2011; 14: 11-21
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 9-17
- Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 1687-1694
- In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 313-320
- Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations.J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24: 85-94
- Sturdevant’s art and science of operative dentistry.7th ed. Elsevier, St. Louis2018: 433-452
- Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form.J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8: 354-362
- Trueness of four different milling procedures used in dental CAD/CAM systems.Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 551-558
- Marginal fit comparison of CAD/CAM crowns milled from two different materials.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 421-428
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 08, 2020
Footnotes
Supported by the Yonsei University College of Dentistry (6-2019-0009).
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
