Abstract
Statement of problem
A patient 3-dimensional virtual representation aims to facilitate the integration
of facial references into treatment planning or prosthesis design procedures, but
the accuracy of the virtual patient representation remains unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of the present observational clinical study was to determine and compare
the accuracy (trueness and precision) of a virtual patient obtained from the superimposition
procedures of facial and intraoral digital scans guided by 2 scan body systems.
Material and methods
Ten participants were recruited. An intraoral digital scan was completed (TRIOS 4).
Four fiduciary markers were placed in the glabella (Gb), left (IOL) and right infraorbital
canal (IOR), and tip of the nose (TN). Two digitizing procedures were completed: cone
beam computed tomography (CBCT) (i-CAT FLX V-Series) and facial scans (Face Camera
Pro Bellus) with 2 different scan body systems: AFT (ScanBodyFace) and Sat 3D (Sat
3D). For the AFT system, a reference facial scan was obtained, followed by a facial
scan with the participant in the same position as when capturing the CBCT scan. For
the Sat 3D system, a reference facial scan was recorded, followed by a facial scan
with the patient in the same position as when capturing the CBCT scan. The patient
3-dimensional representation for each scan body system was obtained by using a computer
program (Matera 2.4). A total of 14 interlandmark distances were measured in the CBCT
scan and both 3-dimensional patient representations. The discrepancies between the
CBCT scan (considered the standard) and each 3-dimensional representation of each
patient were used to analyze the data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that trueness
and precision values were not normally distributed (P<.05). A log10 transformation was performed with 1-way repeated-measures MANOVA (α=.05).
Results
The accuracy of the virtual 3-dimensional patient representations obtained by using
AFT and Sat 3D systems showed a trueness ranging from 0.50 to 1.64 mm and a precision
ranging from 0.04 to 0.14 mm. The Wilks lambda detected an overall significant difference
in the accuracy values between the AFT and Sat 3D systems (F=3628.041, df=14, P<.001). A significant difference was found in 12 of the 14 interlandmark measurements
(P<.05). The AFT system presented significantly higher discrepancy values in Gb-IOL,
TN-IOR, IOL-IOR, and TN-6 (P<.05) than in the Sat 3D system. The Sat 3D system had a significantly higher discrepancy
in Gb-TN, TN-IOL, IOL-3, IOL-6, TN-8, TN-9, TN-11, IOR-11, and IOR-14 (P<.05) than in the AFT system. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test did not detect any significant
difference in the precision values between the AFT and Sat 3D systems (Z=-0.838, P=.402).
Conclusions
The accuracy of the patient 3-dimensional virtual representations obtained using AFT
and Sat 3D systems showed trueness values ranging from 0.50 to 1.64 mm and precision
values ranging from 0.04 to 0.14 mm. The AFT system obtained higher trueness than
the Sat 3D system, but both systems showed similar precision values.
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
- Esthetics in dentistry.in: 3. Principles, communication, treatment methods. 1. BC Decker, Ontario1998: 85-112
- Esthetics of anterior fixed prosthodontics.Quintessence, Chicago1996: 33-50
- Esthetic rehabilitation in fixed prosthodontics.in: Esthetic analysis: a systematic approach to prosthetic treatment. 1. Quintessence, Chicago2004: 22-30
- Fundamentals of esthetics.Quintessence, Chicago1990: 205-241
- A multidisciplinary approach to esthetic dentistry.Dent Clin North Am. 2007; 51: 487-505
- Smile analysis and design in the digital era.J Clin Orthod. 2002; 36: 221-236
- Systematic literature review of digital three-dimensional superimposition techniques to create virtual dental patients.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 330-337
- Integration of digital dental casts in 3-dimensional facial photographs.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134: 820Y826
- Digital dental cast placement in 3-dimensional, full-face reconstruction: a technical evaluation.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138: 84Y88
- Facially driven digital diagnostic waxing: New software features to simulate and define restorative outcomes.Curr Oral Health Rep. 2019; 6: 284-294
- A digital approach integrating facial scanning in a CAD-CAM workflow for complete-mouth implant-supported rehabilitation of patients with edentulism: A pilot clinical study.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 486-492
- Facially generated and cephalometric guided 3D digital design for complete mouth implant rehabilitation: A clinical report.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 577-586
- Combining intraoral scans, cone beam computed tomography and face scans: The virtual patient.J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29: 2241-2246
- 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
- Workflow of a fiber-reinforced composite fixed dental prosthesis by using a 4-piece additive manufactured silicone index: A dental technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 569-575
- Digitally created 3-piece additive manufactured index for direct esthetic treatment.J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 436-442
- A facially driven complete-mouth rehabilitation with ultrathin CAD-CAM composite resin veneers for a patient with severe tooth wear: A minimally invasive approach.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 537-547
- Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 836-845
- Intra-arch dimensional measurement validity of laser-scanned digital dental models compared with the original plaster models: a systematic review.Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015; 18: 65-76
- An introduction to dental digitizers in dentistry. A systematic review.J Chem Pharm Res. 2015; 7: 10-20
- Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics. A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 184-190
- Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review.Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38: 429-434
- 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, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence.Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38: 422-428
- The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 124-131
- Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 0: 101-120
- Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient.Evid Based Dent. 2017; 18: 24-25
- Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-121
- Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
- Intraoral scanners technologies: A review to make a successful impression.J Healthc Eng. 2017; 2017: 8427595
- Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 392-399
- Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 93-101
- Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions.J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10: e361-e366
- Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner.J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 324-329
- Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 372-378
- Intraoral digital scans: Part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 575-580
- Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner.J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 107-113
- Analysis of different illuminance of the room lighting condition on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner.J Prosthodont. 2021; 30: 157-162
- Effect of imaging powder and CAD/CAM stone types on the marginal gap of zirconia crowns.J Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 146: 111-120
- A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by two intraoral scanners: effects on tooth irregularities and scanning direction.Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
- Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod scanner.Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
- 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
- Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws.J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144: 914-920
- Evaluating causes of error in landmark-based data collection using scanners.PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0187452
- 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
- Use of 3-dimensional surface acquisition to study facial morphology in 5 populations.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137: S56.e1-S56.e9
- Reliability of a three-dimensional facial camera for dental and medical applications: A pilot study.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 282-287
- Anthropometric precision and accuracy of digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: comparing the Genex and 3dMD imaging systems with one another and with direct anthropometry.J Craniofac Surg. 2006; 17: 477-483
- Validation of a three-dimensional facial scanning system based on structured light techniques.Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2009; 94: 290-298
- Three-dimensional facial anthropommetry of unilateral cleft lip infants with a structured light scanning system.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2013; 66: 1109-1116
- Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability and reproducibility of two different 3D face-scanning systems.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; s29: 213-218
- Comparison of three-dimensional scanner systems for craniomaxillofacial imaging.J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017; 70: 441-449
- Three-dimensional accuracy of facial scan for facial deformities in clinics: a new evaluation method for facial scanner accuracy.PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0169402
- Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: A systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 246-251
- Accuracy (trueness and precision) of a dual-structured light facial scanner and interexaminer reliability.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 567-574
- Accurate registration of cone-beam computed tomography scans to 3-dimensional facial photographs.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 145: 256-264
- Assessing the Correlation between Skeletal and corresponding soft-tissue equivalents to determine the relationship between CBCT skeletal/dental dimensions and 3D radiographic soft-tissue equivalents.Int J Dent. 2018; 2018: 8926314
- ISO 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions.(Available at:)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 07, 2021
Footnotes
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
