Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: An in vitro study

Published:December 09, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.034

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has been evaluated. However, testing their performance when scanning deep endocrown preparations is lacking.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of pulpal chamber extension depth (PCED) on scanning accuracy and to compare the accuracy of different IOSs on scanning different PCEDs.

      Material and methods

      Six different IOSs were compared: TRIOS 3, CEREC Omnicam, CEREC Primescan, Planmeca Emerald, iTero Element2, and Virtuo Vivo. Endocrown preparations were digitally designed with a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) software program (Rhicoceros), and the PCEDs of preparations were 2, 3.5, and 5 mm. Designed preparations were milled from a polymethylmethacrylate block (Telio CAD) with a milling unit. Reference scans were obtained from an industrial scanner (ATOS), and 5 test scans of each cavity were made with 6 IOSs. All scans were converted into standard tessellation language (STL) files. The data sets obtained from the IOSs were superimposed on the reference scan to evaluate trueness and on each other within groups to determine precision by using a 3D analysis software program (Geomagic Control X). Obtained data were analyzed with 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (α=.05).

      Results

      CEREC Primescan was found to have the best trueness and precision among the evaluated IOSs (P<.05), while Planmeca Emerald was found to have the lowest trueness (P<.05). For all tested PCEDs, statistically significant differences were found among IOSs. A PCED with a 2-mm depth (18.57 ±4.80 μm) showed significantly better scanning trueness than that with a 5-mm depth (23.81 ±6.53), while no significant differences were found between 2 and 3.5 mm (P>.05).

      Conclusions

      Deep pulpal chamber extensions of endocrown restorations could negatively affect scanning accuracy, and scanning accuracy varies depending on the selected IOS. CEREC Primescan appears to be the best IOS choice for scanning endocrowns with deep pulpal chamber extensions.
      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 access
      One-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 Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Richert R.
        • Goujat A.
        • Venet L.
        • Viguie G.
        • Viennot S.
        • Robinson P.
        • et al.
        Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression.
        J Healthc Eng. 2017; 2017: 1-9
        • Ferrini F.
        • Sannino G.
        • Chiola C.
        • Capparé P.
        • Gastaldi G.
        • Gherlone E.F.
        Influence of intra-oral scanner on the marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM single crowns.
        Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16: 1-9
        • Nedelcu R.
        • Olsson P.
        • Nyström I.
        • Thor A.
        Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.
        BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18: 1-11
        • Tomita Y.
        • Uechi J.
        • Konno M.
        • Sasamoto S.
        • Iijima M.
        • Mizoguchi I.
        Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.
        Dent Mater J. 2018; 37: 628-633
        • Chiu A.
        • Chen Y.W.
        • Hayashi J.
        • Sadr A.
        Accuracy of CAD/CAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters.
        Sensors. 2020; 20: 1-9
        • Mangano F.
        • Gandolfi A.
        • Luongo G.
        • Logozzo S.
        Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.
        BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 1-11
        • Imburgia M.
        • Logozzo S.
        • Hauschild U.
        • Veronesi G.
        • Mangano C.
        • Mangano F.G.
        Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.
        BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 1-13
        • 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
        • International Organization for Standardization
        ISO-5725-1 Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: general principles and definitions.
        (Available at:)
        • Arakida T.
        • Kanazawa M.
        • Iwaki M.
        • Suzuki T.
        • Minakuchi S.
        Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 324-329
        • Uhm S.H.
        • Kım J.H.
        • Jiang H.B.
        • Woo C.W.
        • Chang M.
        • Kım K.N.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard.
        Dent Mater J. 2016; 36: 27-34
        • Hayama H.
        • Fueki K.
        • Wadachi J.
        • Wakabayashi N.
        Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 347-352
        • Kim M.K.
        • Kim J.M.
        • Lee Y.M.
        • Lim Y.J.
        • Lee S.P.
        The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry.
        Clin Anat. 2019; 32: 430-438
        • Park J.
        • Kim R.J.
        • Lee K.
        Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 123: 113-120
        • Hack G.D.
        • Patzelt S.B.M.
        Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation.
        ADA Prof Prod Rev. 2015; 10: 1-5
        • Nedelcu R.G.
        • Persson A.S.K.
        Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1461-1471
        • Mennito A.S.
        • Evans Z.P.
        • Lauer A.W.
        • Patel R.B.
        • Ludlow M.E.
        • Renne W.G.
        Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.
        J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30: 113-118
        • Ender A.
        • Zimmerman M.
        • Mehl A.
        Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22: 11-19
        • Michelinakis G.
        • Apostolakis D.
        • Tsagarakis A.
        • Kourakis G.
        • Pavlakis E.
        A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 581-588
        • Shin Y.
        • Park S.
        • Park J.W.
        • Kim K.M.
        • Park Y.B.
        • Roh B.D.
        Evaluation of the marginal and internal discrepancies of CAD-CAM endocrowns with different cavity depths: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 109-115
        • Gaintantzopoulou M.
        • El-Damanhoury H.
        Effect of preparation depth on the marginal and internal adaptation of computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture endocrowns.
        Oper Dent. 2016; 41: 607-616
        • Kuzekanan M.
        Nickel titanium rotary instruments: development of the single-file systems.
        J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017; 8: 71-81
        • Sedrez-Porto J.A.
        • Rosa WL de O da
        • da Silva A.F.
        • Münchow E.A.
        • Pereira-Cenci T.
        Endocrown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Dent. 2016; 52: 8-14
        • Biacchi G.R.
        • Mello B.
        • Basting R.T.
        The endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars.
        J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013; 25: 383-390
        • Elagra M.E.
        Endocrown preparation: review.
        Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2019; 5: 253-256
        • Alomran W.
        Endocrowns : a review article.
        Sch J Dent Sci. 2018; 5: 306-309
        • Haralur S.B.
        • Alamri A.A.
        • Alshehri S.A.
        • Alzahrani D.S.
        • Alfarsi M.
        Influence of occlusal thickness and radicular extension on the fracture resistance of premolar endocrowns from different all-ceramic materials.
        Appl Sci. 2020; 10: 2696
        • Tzimas K.
        • Tsiafitsa M.
        • Gerasimou P.
        • Tsitrou E.
        Endocrown restorations for extensively damaged posterior teeth: clinical performance of three cases.
        Restor Dent Endod. 2018; 43: 1-9
        • Taha D.
        • Spintzyk S.
        • Schille C.
        • Sabet A.
        • Wahsh M.
        • Salah T.
        • et al.
        Fracture resistance and failure modes of polymer infiltrated ceramic endocrown restorations with variations in margin design and occlusal thickness.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 293-297
        • Dartora N.R.
        • Ferreira M.B.C.
        • Moris I.C.M.
        • Brazao E.H.
        • Spazin A.O.
        • Sousa-Neto M.D.
        • et al.
        Effect of intracoronal depth of teeth restored with endocrowns on fracture resistance: in vitro and 3-dimensional finite element analysis.
        J Endod. 2018; 44: 1179-1185
        • Govare N.
        • Contrepois M.
        Endocrowns: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 411-418.e9
        • Yıldıran-AY
        • Kanat-Ertürk B.
        • Helvacıoglu-Yıgıt D.
        • Koseler E.
        • Sarıdag S.
        • Avcu E.
        Fracture strengths of endocrown restorations fabricated with different preparation depths and CAD/CAM materials.
        Dent Mater J. 2017; 37: 256-265
        • Güth J.F.
        • Edelhoff D.
        • Schweiger J.
        • Keul C.
        A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1487-1494
        • Hayes A.
        • Duvall N.
        • Wajdowicz M.
        • Roberts H.
        Effect of endocrown pulp chamber extension depth on molar fracture resistance.
        Oper Dent. 2017; 42: 327-334
        • Latham J.
        • Ludlow M.
        • Mennito A.
        • Kelly A.
        • Evans Z.
        • Renne W.
        Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 85-95