scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article•DOI•

Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.

Walter G. Renne1, Mark Ludlow1, John Fryml1, Zach Schurch1, Anthony S. Mennito1, Ray Kessler1, Abigail Lauer1 •
Medical University of South Carolina1
01 Jul 2017-Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (Elsevier)-Vol. 118, Iss: 1, pp 36-42
TL;DR: For sextant scanning, the Planscan was found to be the most precise and true scanner and the 3Shape Trios was foundto have the best balance of speed and accuracy.
Abstract: Statement of problem As digital impressions become more common and more digital impression systems are released onto the market, it is essential to systematically and objectively evaluate their accuracy. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the trueness and precision of 6 intraoral scanners and 1 laboratory scanner in both sextant and complete-arch scenarios. Furthermore, time of scanning was evaluated and correlated with trueness and precision. Material and methods A custom complete-arch model was fabricated with a refractive index similar to that of tooth structure. Seven digital impression systems were used to scan the custom model for both posterior sextant and complete arch scenarios. Analysis was performed using 3-dimensional metrology software to measure discrepancies between the master model and experimental casts. Results Of the intraoral scanners, the Planscan was found to have the best trueness and precision while the 3Shape Trios was found to have the poorest for sextant scanning ( P iTero >3Shape TRIOS 3 >Carestream 3500 >Planscan >CEREC Omnicam >CEREC Bluecam. The order of precision for complete-arch scanning was as follows: CS3500 >iTero >3Shape D800 >3Shape TRIOS 3 >CEREC Omnicam >Planscan >CEREC Bluecam. For the secondary outcome evaluating the effect time has on trueness and precision, the complete- arch scan time was highly correlated with both trueness (r=0.771) and precision (r=0.771). Conclusions For sextant scanning, the Planscan was found to be the most precise and true scanner. For complete-arch scanning, the 3Shape Trios was found to have the best balance of speed and accuracy.
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

[...]

Francesco Mangano, Andrea Gandolfi, Giuseppe Luongo, Silvia Logozzo1•
University of Perugia1
12 Dec 2017-BMC Oral Health
TL;DR: Optical impressions reduce patient discomfort; IOS are time-efficient and simplify clinical procedures for the dentist, eliminating plaster models and allowing better communication with the dental technician and with patients; however, with IOS, it can be difficult to detect deep margin lines in prepared teeth and in case of bleeding, there is a learning curve, and there are purchasing and managing costs.
Abstract: Intraoral scanners (IOS) are devices for capturing direct optical impressions in dentistry. The purpose of this narrative review on the use of IOS was to: (1) identify the advantages/disadvantages of using optical impressions compared to conventional impressions; (2) investigate if optical impressions are as accurate as conventional impressions; (3) evaluate the differences between the IOS currently available commercially; (4) determine the current clinical applications/limitations in the use of IOS. Electronic database searches were performed using specific keywords and MeSH terms. The searches were confined to full-text articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2007 and June 2017. One hundred thirty-two studies were included in the present review; among them, 20 were previous literature reviews, 78 were in vivo clinical studies (6 randomized controlled/crossover trials, 31 controlled/comparative studies; 24 cohort studies/case series; 17 case reports) and 34 were in vitro comparative studies. Optical impressions reduce patient discomfort; IOS are time-efficient and simplify clinical procedures for the dentist, eliminating plaster models and allowing better communication with the dental technician and with patients; however, with IOS, it can be difficult to detect deep margin lines in prepared teeth and/or in case of bleeding, there is a learning curve, and there are purchasing and managing costs. The current IOS are sufficiently accurate for capturing impressions for fabricating a whole series of prosthetic restorations (inlays/onlays, copings and frameworks, single crowns and fixed partial dentures) on both natural teeth and implants; in addition, they can be used for smile design, and to fabricate posts and cores, removable partial prostheses and obturators. The literature to date does not support the use of IOS in long-span restorations with natural teeth or implants. Finally, IOS can be integrated in implant dentistry for guided surgery and in orthodontics for fabricating aligners and custom-made devices.

376 citations

Cites background from "Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 dig..."

  • ...Scanning speed is certainly a matter of great importance for an IOS [2, 4, 50, 54, 62]....

    [...]

  • ...However, the literature has not clarified which device can be more efficient: in fact, the scanning speed does not depend only on the device, but largely on the experience of the clinician [2, 4, 34, 50, 54, 62]....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.

[...]

Mario Imburgia, Silvia Logozzo1, Uli Hauschild, Giovanni Veronesi2, Carlo Mangano, Francesco Mangano2 •
University of Perugia1, University of Insubria2
02 Jun 2017-BMC Oral Health
TL;DR: Significant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher than those obtained in the BEM.
Abstract: Background Until now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants Methods Two gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision A detailed statistical analysis was carried out Results In the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (458 ± 16μm), followed by Trios3® (502 ± 25μm), Omnicam® (588 ± 16μm) and TrueDefinition® (614 ± 30μm) Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition® In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (606 ± 117μm), followed by Omnicam® (664 ± 39μm), Trios3® (672 ± 69μm) and TrueDefinition® (1064 ± 231μm) Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition® For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (195 ± 31μm), followed by Trios3® (245 ± 37μm), CS3600® (248 ± 46μm) and Omnicam® (263 ± 15μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (315 ± 98μm), followed by Omnicam® (572 ± 91μm), CS3600® (655 ± 167μm) and TrueDefinition® (753 ± 438μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3® Conclusions Significant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM These findings may have important clinical implications

240 citations

Cites background from "Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 dig..."

  • ...blood, limited mouth opening and movements of the patient) [3, 22, 37]....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.

[...]

Jung Hwa Lim1, Ji-Man Park2, Minji Kim1, Seong-Joo Heo2, Ji Yun Myung1 •
Ewha Womans University1, Seoul National University2
08 Jul 2017-Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
TL;DR: The newer system offered better trueness and precision and was less likely to be influenced by the length of clinical career or the region being scanned, than the single‐image based system.
Abstract: Statement of problem Because the digital workflow can begin directly in the oral cavity, intraoral scanners are being adopted in dental treatments. However, studies of the relationship between the experience of the practitioner and the accuracy of impression data are needed. Purpose The purpose of this clinical study was to investigate the effect of the experience curve on changes in trueness when a patient's complete dental arch is scanned. Material and methods Twenty dental hygienists with more than 3 years of experience in dental clinical practice (group 1 had 3 to 5 years; group 2 had >6 years) were recruited to learn to operate 2 intraoral scanner systems. All learners scanned the assigned patient's oral cavity 10 times during the experience sessions. Precision was calculated as the mean deviation among all superimposition combinations from the 10 scanned data sets of each learner [n= 10 C 2 =45]. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the 10 consecutive intraoral scan data onto the impression scan data from each patient's rubber impression body (n=10). The acquired images were processed and analyzed using a 3-dimensional analysis software. For statistical analysis, the independent 2-sample t test and repeated measures ANOVA were performed (α=.05). Results The mean precision of the Trios scanner was greater than that of the iTero (Trios, 52.30 μm; iTero, 60.46 μm; P P P >.05). In the iTero group but not in the Trios group, the length of clinical experience influenced the change of trueness as a result of repeated experience ( P P Conclusions The single-image based system required repeated learning sessions for effective clinical application. The newer system offered better trueness and precision and was less likely to be influenced by the length of clinical career or the region being scanned.

153 citations

Cites methods from "Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 dig..."

  • ...Studies of the accuracy of intraoral scanners have been performed with individual abutments,(7-11) CAD-CAM restorations,(12-14) and quadrantand complete-arch scans.(15-27) Among those studies, Ender et al(15) compared the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus CEREC Bluecam and LAVA COS optical impressions from a complete-arch model and reported similar accuracy for digital and conventional methods....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions : A novel in vivo analysis method

[...]

Robert Nedelcu1, Pontus Olsson1, Ingela Nyström1, Jesper Rydén1, Andreas Thor1 •
Uppsala University1
12 Dec 2017-Journal of Dentistry
TL;DR: The methodology can be used for assessing accuracy of IOS and IMPR in vivo in up to five units bilaterally from midline and has the potential to be a replacement for conventional impressions when restoring up to ten units without extended edentulous spans.

147 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.

[...]

Marta Revilla-León1, Marta Revilla-León2, Peng Jiang2, Mehrad Sadeghpour2, Wenceslao Piedra-Cascón3, Amirali Zandinejad2, Mutlu Özcan4, Vinayak R. Krishnamurthy2 •
University of Washington1, Texas A&M University2, Complutense University of Madrid3, University of Zurich4
01 Sep 2020-Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
TL;DR: Ambient lighting conditions influenced the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOSs tested, and significant differences for trueness and Precision mean values were observed across different I OSs tested with the same lighting conditions and across different lighting conditions for a given IOS.
Abstract: Statement of problem Digital scans have increasingly become an alternative to conventional impressions. Although previous studies have analyzed the accuracy of the available intraoral scanners (IOSs), the effect of the light scanning conditions on the accuracy of those IOS systems remains unclear. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the impact of lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different IOSs. Material and methods A typodont was digitized by using an extraoral scanner (L2i; Imetric) to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. Three IOSs were evaluated—iTero Element, CEREC Omnicam, and TRIOS 3—with 4 lighting conditions—chair light 10 000 lux, room light 1003 lux, natural light 500 lux, and no light 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group were recorded. The STL file was used as a reference to measure the discrepancy between the digitized typodont and digital scans by using the MeshLab software program. The Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparison were used to analyze the data. Results Significant differences for trueness and precision mean values were observed across different IOSs tested with the same lighting conditions and across different lighting conditions for a given IOS. In all groups, precision mean values were higher than their trueness values, indicating low relative precision. Conclusions Ambient lighting conditions influenced the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOSs tested. The recommended lighting conditions depend on the IOS selected. For iTero Element, chair and room light conditions resulted in better accuracy mean values. For CEREC Omnicam, zero light resulted in better accuracy, and for TRIOS 3, room light resulted in better accuracy.

146 citations

References
More filters
Book•
Craig's Restorative Dental Materials

[...]

Ronald L. Sakaguchi1, John M. Powers•
Oregon Health & Science University1
10 Mar 2006
TL;DR: Craig's restorative dental materials, Craig's restative dental materials , کتابخانه دیجیتال جندی اهواز
Abstract: Craig's restorative dental materials , Craig's restorative dental materials , کتابخانه دیجیتال جندی شاپور اهواز

998 citations

"Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 dig..." refers background in this paper

  • ...include technique sensitivity, patient discomfort, dimensional changes after polymerization, tray distortion, dental stone distortion, and distortion from disinfection agents.(9-20) Despite these minor shortcomings, the combination of elastomeric impression materials and dental stone casts has been successful over a long period....

    [...]

Book•
Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics

[...]

Stephen F. Rosenstiel, Martin F. Land, Junhei Fujimoto
01 Jan 1988
TL;DR: Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics, Contemporary Fixedprosthodonics , کتابخانه دیجیتال جندی شاپور اهواز
Abstract: Contemporary fixed prosthodontics , Contemporary fixed prosthodontics , کتابخانه الکترونیک و دیجیتال - آذرسا

986 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.

[...]

Andreas Ender1, Albert Mehl1•
University of Zurich1
01 Feb 2013-Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
TL;DR: The new reference scanner is capable of measuring the precision and trueness of both digital and conventional complete-arch impressions, and the digital impression is less accurate and shows a different pattern of deviation than the conventional impression.
Abstract: STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A new approach to both 3-dimensional (3D) trueness and precision is necessary to assess the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions and compare them to conventionally acquired impressions. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether a new reference scanner is capable of measuring conventional and digital intraoral complete-arch impressions for 3D accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A steel reference dentate model was fabricated and measured with a reference scanner (digital reference model). Conventional impressions were made from the reference model, poured with Type IV dental stone, scanned with the reference scanner, and exported as digital models. Additionally, digital impressions of the reference model were made and the digital models were exported. Precision was measured by superimposing the digital models within each group. Superimposing the digital models on the digital reference model assessed the trueness of each impression method. Statistical significance was assessed with an independent sample t test (α=.05). RESULTS: The reference scanner delivered high accuracy over the entire dental arch with a precision of 1.6 ±0.6 µm and a trueness of 5.3 ±1.1 µm. Conventional impressions showed significantly higher precision (12.5 ±2.5 µm) and trueness values (20.4 ±2.2 µm) with small deviations in the second molar region (P<.001). Digital impressions were significantly less accurate with a precision of 32.4 ±9.6 µm and a trueness of 58.6 ±15.8µm (P<.001). More systematic deviations of the digital models were visible across the entire dental arch. CONCLUSIONS: The new reference scanner is capable of measuring the precision and trueness of both digital and conventional complete-arch impressions. The digital impression is less accurate and shows a different pattern of deviation than the conventional impression.

464 citations

"Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 dig..." refers background or methods or result in this paper

  • ...2).(22-28) A sextant and a complete-arch digital impression were made of a custom model using the dental scanners, and the accuracy and precision were evaluated and compared using a master scan as the reference model....

    [...]

  • ...Therefore, a scanner with high trueness indicates that the scanner delivers a result that is close or equal to the actual dimensions of the object being scanned.(22) Ender et al(22) found that for completearch treatments, conventional impressions were significantly more accurate than digital impressions....

    [...]

  • ...1) describes how close repeated measurements are to each other.(22) Therefore, a scanner with higher precision correlates to a more repeatable and consistent scan....

    [...]

  • ...However, digital impressions also have disadvantages, and, when compared with elastomeric impressions, the potential exists for greater distortion of the digital impression, possibly due to poor technique or the limitations of the specific scanning technology.(22) Accuracy consists of precision and trueness (ISO 5725-1)....

    [...]

  • ...Although a direct comparison with published results is difficult because of variations in study design, the results of this study are in agreement with values reported in the literature for trueness and precision of intraoral impression systems.(22-33) Hack et al(25) found the ST to be the truest scanner when evaluating a single tooth....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner

[...]

Tabea Flügge1, Stefan Schlager1, Katja Nelson1, Susanne Nahles2, Marc C. Metzger1 •
University Medical Center Freiburg1, Charité2
01 Sep 2013-American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
TL;DR: Intraoral and extraoral scanning with the iTero resulted in deviations at the facial surfaces of the anterior teeth and the buccal molar surfaces, suggesting that the intraoral conditions (saliva, limited spacing) contribute to the inaccuracy of a scan.

379 citations

"Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 dig..." refers methods or result in this paper

  • ...The IT scanner uses a proven parallel confocal imaging technology with red laser light beams to capture images of dental tissues.(25,29-33) The ST scanner is based on confocal microscopy capturing multiple images in a very short time....

    [...]

  • ...Although a direct comparison with published results is difficult because of variations in study design, the results of this study are in agreement with values reported in the literature for trueness and precision of intraoral impression systems.(22-33) Hack et al(25) found the ST to be the truest scanner when evaluating a single tooth....

    [...]

Journal Article•DOI•
Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

[...]

Sebastian B. M. Patzelt1, Sebastian B. M. Patzelt2, Archontia Emmanouilidi2, Susanne Stampf2, Joerg R. Strub2, Wael Att2 •
University of Maryland, Baltimore1, University Medical Center Freiburg2
01 Jul 2014-Clinical Oral Investigations
TL;DR: The results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans.
Abstract: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans. A representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). A level of statistical significance of p < 0.05 was set. Mean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero (p < 0.05). Except for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions. Despite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations.

356 citations

"Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 dig..." refers background or methods or result in this paper

  • ...The IT scanner uses a proven parallel confocal imaging technology with red laser light beams to capture images of dental tissues.(25,29-33) The ST scanner is based on confocal microscopy capturing multiple images in a very short time....

    [...]

  • ...Although a direct comparison with published results is difficult because of variations in study design, the results of this study are in agreement with values reported in the literature for trueness and precision of intraoral impression systems.(22-33) Hack et al(25) found the ST to be the truest scanner when evaluating a single tooth....

    [...]

  • ...It uses active triangulation and emits white light to measure surfaces,(25) and is based on video technology that captures the anatomy and color of the oral tissues with a broad focal depth camera.(29) The CB uses a blue light-emitting diode to make single images on surfaces powdered with titanium dioxide that is necessary for capturing the surface anatomy....

    [...]

  • ...Its wand needs to be positioned over the structures to be captured.(25,29,31) The SD extraoral scanner has been reported to have a precision of less than 20 mm with an image resolution of the built-in camera of 5 megapixels for texture mapping....

    [...]

Related Papers (5)
Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.

[...]

01 Feb 2013-Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Andreas Ender, Albert Mehl
In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.

[...]

01 Mar 2016-Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Andreas Ender, Thomas Attin, Albert Mehl
Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

[...]

01 Jul 2014-Clinical Oral Investigations
Sebastian B. M. Patzelt, Sebastian B. M. Patzelt, Archontia Emmanouilidi, Susanne Stampf, Joerg R. Strub, Wael Att 
Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner

[...]

01 Sep 2013-American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Tabea Flügge, Stefan Schlager, Katja Nelson, Susanne Nahles, Marc C. Metzger 
Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

[...]

30 Jan 2014-BMC Oral Health
Emir Yuzbasioglu, Hanefi Kurt, Rana Turunc, Halenur Bilir