Abstract
Statement of problem
With the emergence of virtual articulators, virtual facebow techniques have been developed
for mounting maxillary digital scans to virtual articulators. Different scanning methods
can be used to obtain 3D face scans, but the influence that these methods have on
the accuracy with which a maxillary digital scan is transferred to a 3D face scan
is unknown.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to analyze the influence of the facial scanning
method on the accuracy with which a maxillary digital scan is transferred to a 3D
face scan in a virtual facebow technique.
Material and methods
According to a virtual facebow technique, a maxillary digital scan was transferred
to a standard virtual patient—who had the maxillary digital scan in its real location—guided
by an intraoral transfer element by using different 3D face scans with the intraoral
transfer element in place (reference 3D face scans) obtained with 2 different scanning
methods: 10 obtained with an accurate scanning method based on structured white light
technology and 10 obtained with a less accurate scanning method based on structure-from-motion
technology. For each situation, deviation between the maxillary digital scan at the
location obtained via the virtual facebow technique and at its real location was obtained
in terms of distance by using a novel methodology. From these distances, the accuracy
was assessed in terms of trueness and precision, according to the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) 5725-1. The Student t test with Welch correction was used to determine if the accuracy with which the maxillary
digital scan was transferred to the standard virtual patient was influenced by the
facial scanning method used to obtain the reference 3D face scans (α=.05).
Results
Significant differences (P<.05) were found among the trueness values obtained when using the different facial
scanning methods, with a very large effect size. A trueness of 0.138 mm and a precision
of 0.022 mm were obtained by using the structured white light scanning method, and
a trueness of 0.416 mm and a precision of 0.095 mm were acquired when using the structure-from-motion
scanning method.
Conclusions
The accuracy with which a maxillary digital scan is located with respect to a 3D face
scan in a virtual facebow technique is strongly influenced by the facial scanning
method used.
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
- The glossary of prosthodontic terms: ninth edition.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: e1-e105
- Facebow use in clinical prosthodontic practice.J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 772-774
- Digital dentistry: the new state of the art — is it disruptive or destructive?.Dent Mater. 2020; 36: 9-24
- Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation.J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 72-84
- Accuracy of transferring analog dental casts to a virtual articulator.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 305-313
- Direct transfer of the position of digitized casts to a virtual articulator.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 411-414
- Improved digital transfer of the maxillary cast to a virtual articulator.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 921-924
- A full-digital technique to mount a maxillary arch scan on a virtual articulator.J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 335-338
- Virtual facebow technique using standardized background images.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 724-728
- Virtual facebow technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 751-755
- A 2-part facebow for CAD-CAM dentistry.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 843-847
- A clinical technique for virtual articulator mounting with natural head position by using calibrated stereophotogrammetry.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 902-908
- Digital workflow for an esthetic rehabilitation using a facial and intraoral scanner and an additive manufactured silicone index: a dental technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 564-570
- Incorporating a facial scanner into the digital workflow: a dental technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 781-785
- The virtual patient in dental medicine.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 725-726
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- A new method to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch: a pilot study.J Adv Prosthodont. 2019; 11: 331-340
- Accuracy (trueness and precision) of a dual-structured light facial scanner and interexaminer reliability.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 567-574
- Scan time, reliability and accuracy of craniofacial measurements using a 3D light scanner.J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2019; 9: 331-335
- Validity and reliability of craniofacial anthropometric measurement of 3D digital photogrammetric images.Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008; 45: 232-239
- Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of two different 3D face-scanning systems.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 213-218
- Accuracy and reproducibility of the DAVID SLS-2 scanner in three-dimensional facial imaging.J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017; 45: 1662-1670
- Comparison of three-dimensional scanner systems for craniomaxillofacial imaging.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017; 70: 441-449
- Reliability of a three-dimensional facial camera for dental and medical applications: a pilot study.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 282-287
- Evaluation of the laser scanner as a surface measuring tool and its accuracy compared with direct facial anthropometric measurements.Br J Plast Surg. 1995; 48: 551-558
- Accuracy and precision of the three-dimensional assessment of the facial surface using a 3-D laser scanner.IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006; 25: 742-754
- ISO-5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - part 1: general principles and definitions.ISO, Geneva1994: 1-17
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 12, 2021
Footnotes
Supported by the Gipuzkoa Provincial Council, Spain (grant number 70/19) and MINECO Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, Spain (grant number PID2019-108975RA-I00).
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
