Statement of problem
Clinical guidelines for obtaining accurate scan data during the intraoral scanning of inlay cavities with various configurations and interproximal distances are lacking.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of interproximal distance and cavity type on the accuracy of digital scans for inlay cavities, including proximal cavities.
Material and methods
Four artificial teeth with 4 types of inlay cavities designed based on the buccolingual width and gingival level of the proximal box were installed in a mannequin at distances of 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 mm from the adjacent teeth. Reference scans of the 4 artificial teeth were obtained by using a laboratory scanner. The CEREC Primescan AC was used to acquire digital scan data (each n=10). Standard tessellation language (STL) files were analyzed with a 3-dimensional analysis software program. The mean deviation values were measured with a 3-dimensional best-fit alignment method to evaluate the accuracy of the digital scan data. Statistical analyses were performed by using 2-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni multiple comparison test (α=.05).
As per the interproximal distance, the 1.0-mm group showed significantly higher trueness than the 0.6-mm group (P<.05). As the interproximal distance increased, the maximum positive deviation significantly decreased (P<.05). Maximum negative deviation and precision of the scan data were not significantly different among the distance groups (P>.05). Cavity type had a significant influence on the trueness and precision of the scan data (P<.05). In particular, the narrow long cavity type had an adverse effect on the precision and maximum positive deviation of scan data.
During the intraoral scanning of class II inlay restoration, interproximal distance and cavity type affected the accuracy of an intraoral scan. As the interproximal distance increased, the trueness of the acquired digital images increased and the maximum positive deviation significantly decreased. The narrow long cavity type negatively affected the mean maximum positive deviation and precision of scan data.
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
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- 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 marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 328-335
- Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22: 11-19
- Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 895-903
- Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 113-120
- Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review.J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 109-113
- Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems.Int J Comput Dent. 2013; 16: 11-21
- Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18: 27
- Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 149
- Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 392-399
- An in vitro 3D evaluation of the accuracy of 4 intraoral optical scanners on a 6-implant model.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 748-754
- ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measuring methods and results. Part-I: General principles and definitions International Organization for Standardization, Berlin.(Available at:)https://www.iso.org/standard/11833.htmlDate: 1994
- ISO 9693-1. Dentistry compatibility testing. Part 1: Metal-ceramic systems. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.(ISO Store Order: OP-184149 (Date: 2017-06-09). Available at:)http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htmlDate: 2012
- Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro.J Am Dent Assoc. 2020; 151: 127-135
- Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations.J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24: 85-94
- 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
- Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: A systematic review of in vitro studies.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 590-597
- Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan.J Dent. 2017; 59: 33-40
- The ability of marginal detection using different intraoral scanning systems: A pilot randomized controlled trial.Am J Dent. 2018; 31: 272-276
- Quantitative evaluation of common errors in digital impression obtained by using an LED blue light in-office CAD/CAM system.Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 401-407
- Welcome to CerecPrimescan AC.Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22: 69-78
- In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type.J Prosthodont Res. 2021; 65: 400-406
Published online: March 09, 2021
Supported by Dental Research Institute PNUDH-2020-02, Pusan National University Dental Hospital.
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.