Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study

  • Burcu Diker
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Dr Burcu Diker, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University of Istanbul Okan, Istanbul Okan University, Tuzla Campus, Akfırat-Tuzla, Istanbul 34959, TURKEY
    Affiliations
    Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author
  • Önjen Tak
    Affiliations
    Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey
    Search for articles by this author
Published:February 05, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.007

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      The digital scan accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) for long-span fixed prosthesis and the effect of the starting quadrant on accuracy is unclear.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of 6 IOSs for complete-arch and prepared teeth digitally isolated from the complete-arch and to determine the effect of the starting quadrant on accuracy.

      Material and methods

      A maxillary model containing bilaterally prepared canines, first molar teeth, and edentulous spans between the prepared teeth was used. The model was scanned by using a highly accurate industrial scanner to create a digital reference data set. Six IOSs were evaluated: TRIOS, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo. The model was scanned 10 times with each IOS by 1 operator according to the protocols described by the manufacturers. Five scans were made starting from the right quadrant (ScanR), followed by 5 scans starting from the left quadrant (ScanL). All data sets were obtained in standard tessellation language (STL) file format and were used to evaluate accuracy (trueness and precision) with a 3D analyzing software program (Geomagic Studio 12; 3D Systems) by using a best-fit alignment. The prepared teeth were digitally isolated from the complete-arch and evaluated with the analyzing software program. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests were used to detect differences for trueness and precision (α=.05).

      Results

      Statistically significant differences were found regarding IOSs (P<.003) and scanning sequence (P<.05). The TRIOS showed the best trueness for the complete-arch, but not statistically different from Primescan, Virtuo Vivo, and iTero (P>.003). The lowest median values for precision of the complete-arch were also found using TRIOS, but no significant difference was found among the scanners (P>.003). In terms of trueness and precision, Primescan had the best accuracy for preparations. Emerald showed significant differences depending on the scanning sequence for complete-arch accuracy. ScanR for trueness (P=.021) and ScanL for precision (P=.004) showed improved results. However, Emerald, TRIOS, and Virtuo Vivo showed statistically significant differences in precision of preparations depending on scanning sequence. ScanL deviated less than ScanR when scanned with TRIOS (P=.025) and Emerald (P=.004), and the opposite with Virtuo Vivo (P=.008). In terms of preparations trueness, no significant difference was found between the ScanR and ScanL of any IOS (P>.05).

      Conclusions

      Based on this in vitro study, the accuracy of the complete-arch and prepared teeth differed according to the IOS and scanning sequence.
      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
        • Alghazzawi T.F.
        Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 72-84
        • Güth J.F.
        • Keul C.
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Beuer F.
        • Edelhoff D.
        Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1201-1208
        • Memari Y.
        • Mohajerfar M.
        • Armin A.
        • Kamalian F.
        • Rezayani V.
        • Beyabanaki E.
        Marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns made by different impression methods: a literature review.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 536-544
        • Ueda K.
        • Beuer F.
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Erdelt K.
        • Keul C.
        • Güth J.F.
        Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 283-289
        • Chochlidakis K.M.
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Geminiani A.
        • Chen C.J.
        • Feng I.J.
        • Ercoli C.
        Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 184-190
        • Ahlholm P.
        • Sipilä K.
        • Vallittu P.
        • Jakonen M.
        • Kotiranta U.
        Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
        • 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
        • Yuzbasioglu E.
        • Kurt H.
        • Turunc R.
        • Bilir H.
        Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.
        BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 10
        • International Organization for Standardization
        ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: General principles and definitions.
        International Organization for Standardization, Geneva1994
        • 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
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.
        Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 9-17
        • Treesh J.C.
        • Liacouras P.C.
        • Taft R.M.
        • Brooks D.I.
        • Raiciulescu S.
        • Ellert D.O.
        • et al.
        Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 382-388
        • Jeong I.D.
        • Lee J.J.
        • Jeon J.H.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Kim H.Y.
        • Kim W.C.
        Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 755-759
        • Nedelcu R.G.
        • Persson A.S.
        Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1461-1471
        • Hack G.D.
        • Patzelt S.B.M.
        Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in vitro investigation.
        Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 10: 1-5
        • Haddadi Y.
        • Bahrami G.
        • Isidor F.
        Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 375-376
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Koller C.
        • Rumetsch M.
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo.
        J Orofac Orthop. 2017; 78: 466-471
        • Latham J.
        • Ludlow M.
        • Mennito A.
        • Kelly A.
        • Evans Z.
        • Renne W.
        (2019). Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 85-95
        • Flügge T.V.
        • Schlager S.
        • Nelson K.
        • Nahles S.
        • Metzger M.C.
        Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.
        Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013; 144: 471-478
        • Fukazawa S.
        • Odaira C.
        • Kondo H.
        Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 450-459
        • Osnes C.A.
        • Wu J.H.
        • Venezia P.
        • Ferrari M.
        • Keeling A.J.
        (2019). Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 6-11
        • Ender A.
        • Zimmermann 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
        • Sim J.Y.
        • Jang Y.
        • Kim W.C.
        • Kim H.Y.
        • Lee D.H.
        • Kim J.H.
        Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 25-30
        • Boeddinghaus M.
        • Breloer E.S.
        • Rehmann P.
        • Wöstmann B.
        Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 2027-2034
        • Shembesh M.
        • Ali A.
        • Finkelman M.
        • Weber H.P.
        • Zandparsa R.
        An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems.
        J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 581-586
        • Güth J.F.
        • Runkel C.
        • Beuer F.
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Edelhoff D.
        • Keul C.
        Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 1445-1455
        • Anh J.W.
        • Park J.M.
        • Chun Y.S.
        • Kim M.
        • Kim M.
        A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction.
        Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
        • Marani R.
        • Renò V.
        • Nitti M.
        • D’Orazio T.
        • Stella E.
        A modified iterative closest point algorithm for 3D point cloud registration.
        Comput Civ Infrastruct Eng. 2016; 31: 515-534
        • Ender A.
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2011; 14: 11-21
        • Uhm S.H.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Jiang H.B.
        • Woo C.W.
        • Chang M.
        • Kim 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. 2017; 36: 27-34
        • Kim J.E.
        • Amelya A.
        • Shin Y.
        • Shim J.-S.
        Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 755-761