Abstract
Statement of problem
The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however,
the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances
and angulations among IOSs remain uncertain.
Purpose
The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning
accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different
scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs.
Material and methods
A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and
45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4,
CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning
angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups
based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices
were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance.
In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated
platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm
scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform
was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In
the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance,
and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the
same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with
the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were
completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was
measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental
scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey
pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal–Wallis
and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05).
Results
IOS (P<.001), scanning distance (P<.001), and scanning angle (P<.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups
tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (P<.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values
than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among
the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning
area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (P<.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area
than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (P<.001). The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (P<.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (P<.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (P>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (P<.001).
Conclusions
Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance,
and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.
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
- Council on Scientific Affairs. Intraoral scanners: An American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators Panel survey.J Am Dent Assoc. 2021; 152: 669-670.e2
- Digital versus conventional full-arch impressions in linear and 3D accuracy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies.Clin Oral Investig. 2022; 26: 5625-5642
- Marginal adaptation of zirconia complete-coverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 603-610
- Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 22 October 2021; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.025
- Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 161-167
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners for recording the denture bearing areas: a systematic review.J Prosthodont. 2021; 30: 520-539
- Accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of various scanning patterns for the extraoral digitalization of complete dentures by using an intraoral scanner.J Prosthet Dent. 5 May 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.017
- Expedited digital-analog hybrid method to fabricate a 3d-printed implant overdenture.J Prosthodont. 2022; 31: 52-57
- Digital workflow for establishing the posterior palatal seal on a digital complete denture.J Prosthodont. 2021; 30: 817-821
- Keratinized mucosa changes around one-stage implants: A prospective case series.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022; 24: 34-42
- Effect of free gingival graft before implant placement on peri-implant health and soft tissue changes: a randomized controlled trial.BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21: 492
- The threshold of an intra oral scanner to measure lesion depth on natural unpolished teeth.Dent Mater. 2022; 38: 1354-1361
- Twenty-four months in vivo wear of enamel antagonists to lithium disilicate implant crowns - a pilot study.J Dent. 2022; 124: 104215
- A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: operator factors.J Esthet Restor Dent. 7 December 2022; ([Epub ahead of print.])https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12985
- A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 2: Patient factors.J Esthet Restor Dent. 13 January 2023; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12993
- Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
- Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of true-ness and operator experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 128: 632-638
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
- The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry.Clin Anat. 2019; 32: 430-438
- Scanning distance influence on the intraoral scanning accuracy-An in vitro study.Materials (Basel). 2022; 15: 3061
- Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry.J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 146-158
- 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
- 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
- Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans.J Dent. 2022; 121: 104138
- Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy.J Prosthet Dent. 21 Febuary 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.012
- Best-fit algorithm influences on virtual casts' alignment discrepancies.J Prosthodont. 7 May 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13537
- ISO 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: general principles and definitions.(Available at:)https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en
- ISO 20896-1:2019. Dentistry — Digital impression devices — Part 1: methods for assessing accuracy.(Available at:)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 03, 2023
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2023 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
