User Experience of Intraoral Scanners in Dentistry: Transnational Questionnaire Study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Al-Hassiny A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10509442 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The use of digital technology has exponentially increased over recent years. Intraoral scanners, especially, have gained traction within orthodontics. The objective of the present review is to investigate the available evidence to create an up-to-date presentation of various clinical aspects of intraoral scanners in orthodontics. Search without restrictions in seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, Proquest) since inception, and hand searching until October 2020, were conducted. The majority of studies were either cross-over or parallel group studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scanners, in comparison to conventional methods, were investigated in several studies, with controversial results. The duration of the procedure did not report any clear outcome in favor of any method. Patients seem to prefer intraoral scanning, even though numerous studies point out the importance of operators' experience and skills. Despite the innovations that intraoral scanners have brought in orthodontic clinical practice, there are still some challenges and limitations in their use. The majority of existing limitations may be overcome with experience and good clinical skills. More high-quality studies need to be conducted so that clinicians can have a clear image of this new technology.
| S-EPMC8834929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:This study evaluated the reliability and validity of one extraoral [Ortho Insight 3D™ (Motionview Software, Hixson, TN/USA)] and two intraoral [ITero™ (Align Technologies, San Jose, CA/USA) and Lythos™ (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA/USA)] scanners. METHODS:Fifteen dry human mandibles were scanned twice with each of the scanners, and digital models were generated. Five measurements were made on the dry mandibles and on each of the generated models, including intermolar width, intercanine width, posterior arch length, premolar crown diameter, and canine height. Systematic and random errors were evaluated based on replicate analyses. Differences were assessed using paired Student's t tests. RESULTS:Replicate analyses showed statistically significant systematic errors for only one measure (intermolar width measured from Ortho Insight 3D scans). Measurements taken from all three scanners were highly reliable, with intraclass correlations ranging from .926 to .999. Method errors were all less than 0.25 mm (averaged ? 0.12 mm). Posterior arch length and canine height were significantly smaller when measured on the Ortho Insight 3D scans than when measured on the dry mandibles and significantly smaller than when measured from the ITero and Lythos models. CONCLUSIONS:While all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.
| S-EPMC4623872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology.MethodsTwo stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cylinders screwed on. The models were digitized with an industrial scanner (IScan D104I®) used as a reference, and with four intraoral scanners (Trios®; CS 3500®; Zfx Intrascan®; Planscan®). Five scans were taken for each model, using each different intraoral scanner. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagics 2012®), where intraoral scans were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate general trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to evaluate general precision. General trueness and precision of any scanner were compared by model type, through an ANOVA model including scanner, model and their interaction. Finally, the distance and angles between simulated implants were measured in each group, and compared to those of the reference model, to evaluate local trueness.ResultsIn the partially edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best general trueness (47.8 μm) and precision (40.8 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.2 μm, precision 51.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 117.0 μm, precision 126.2 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 233.4 μm, precision 219.8 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. In the totally edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best performance in terms of general trueness (63.2 μm) and precision (55.2 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.6 μm, precision 67.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 103.0 μm, precision 112.4 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 253.4 μm, precision 204.2 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. Local trueness values confirmed these results.ConclusionsAlthough no differences in trueness and precision were found between partially and totally edentulous models, statistically significant differences were found between the different scanners. Further studies are required to confirm these results.
| S-EPMC5042463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. METHODS:A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed. RESULTS:With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4??m) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4??m), i-500® (32.2??m), TRIOS 3® (36.4??m), CS 3600® (36.5??m), PRIMESCAN® (38.4??m), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8??m), RUNEYES® (44.4??m), EMERALD S® (52.9??m), EMERALD® (76.1??m), OMNICAM® (79.6??m) and DWIO® (98.4??m). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1??m), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3??m), TRIOS 3® (20.2??m), i-500® (20.8??m), CS 3700® (21.9??m), CS 3600® (24.4??m), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0??m), RUNEYES® (33.9??m), EMERALD S® (36.8??m), OMNICAM® (47.0??m), EMERALD® (51.9??m) and DWIO® (69.9??m). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.
| S-EPMC7509929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital methods that enable early caries identification can streamline data collection in research and optimize dental examinations for young children. Intraoral scanners are devices used for creating 3D models of teeth in dentistry and are being rapidly adopted into clinical workflows. Integrating fluorescence technology into scanner hardware can support early caries detection. However, the performance of caries detection methods using 3D models featuring color and fluorescence in primary teeth is unknown.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the diagnostic agreement between visual examination (VE), on-screen assessment of 3D models in approximate natural colors with and without fluorescence, and application of an automated caries scoring system to the 3D models with fluorescence for caries detection in primary teeth.MethodsThe study sample will be drawn from eligible participants in a randomized controlled trial at the Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, where a dental assessment was conducted, including VE using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and intraoral scan using the TRIOS 4 (3Shape TRIOS A/S). Participant clinical records will be collected, and all records meeting eligibility criteria will be subject to an on-screen assessment of 3D models by 4 dental practitioners. First, all primary tooth surfaces will be examined for caries based on 3D geometry and color, using a merged ICDAS index. Second, the on-screen assessment of 3D models will include fluorescence, where caries will be classified using a merged ICDAS index that has been modified to incorporate fluorescence criteria. After 4 weeks, all examiners will repeat the on-screen assessment for all 3D models. Finally, an automated caries scoring system will be used to classify caries on primary occlusal surfaces. The agreement in the total number of caries detected per person between methods will be assessed using a Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients. At a tooth surface level, agreement between methods will be estimated using multilevel models to account for the clustering of dental data.ResultsAutomated caries scoring of 3D models was completed as of October 2023, with the publication of results expected by July 2024. On-screen assessment has commenced, with the expected completion of scoring and data analysis by March 2024. Results will be disseminated by the end of 2024.ConclusionsThe study outcomes may inform new practices that use digital models to facilitate dental assessments. Novel approaches that enable remote dental examination without compromising the accuracy of VE have wide applications in the research environment, clinical practice, and the provision of teledentistry.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622001237774; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=384632.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/51578.
| S-EPMC10755660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the reliability of five different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in the capture of implant scanbodies (SBs) and to verify the dimensional congruence between the meshes (MEs) of the SBs and the corresponding library file (LF). METHODS:A gypsum cast of a fully edentulous maxilla with six implant analogues and SBs screwed on was scanned with five different IOSs (PRIMESCAN®, CS 3700®, MEDIT i-500®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®, and Emerald S®). Ten scans were taken for each IOS. The resulting MEs were imported to reverse engineering software for 3D analysis, consisting of the superimposition of the SB LF onto each SB ME. Then, a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the deviations between MEs and LF was performed. A careful statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS:PRIMESCAN® showed the highest congruence between SB MEs and LF, with the lowest mean absolute deviation (25.5 ± 5.0 ?m), immediately followed by CS 3700® (27.0 ± 4.3 ?m); the difference between them was not significant (p = 0.1235). PRIMESCAN® showed a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500® (29.8 ± 4.8 ?m, p < 0.0001), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (34.2 ± 9.3 ?m, p < 0.0001), and Emerald S® (38.3 ± 7.8 ?m, p < 0.0001). CS 3700® had a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500® (p = 0.0004), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (p < 0.0001), and Emerald S® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were also found between MEDIT i-500® and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (p < 0.0001), MEDIT i-500® and Emerald S® (p < 0.0001), and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® and Emerald S® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were found among different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. The deviations of the IOSs showed different directions and patterns. With PRIMESCAN®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®, and Emerald S®, the MEs were included inside the LF; with CS 3700®, the LF was included in the MEs. MEDIT i-500® showed interpolation between the MEs and LF, with no clear direction for the deviation. CONCLUSIONS:Statistically different levels of congruence were found between the SB MEs and the corresponding LF when using different IOSs. Significant differences were also found between different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. Finally, the qualitative evaluation revealed different directions and patterns for the five IOSs.
| S-EPMC7408706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The problem of antibiotic resistance is becoming increasingly serious worldwide due to uncontrolled prescription. Dentists are among the groups that prescribe the most antibiotics, often to delay urgent treatment. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the prescribing protocols adopted by dentists for prophylaxis and antibiotic therapy in major clinical surgical indications.MethodsA ten-question survey was administered to a group of Italian dentists. The participants were asked about their preferences for antibiotic administration for the prevention of infective endocarditis, the administration of antibiotics to patients allergic to penicillin, the insertion of implants, and the extraction of third molars. The retrieved data were screened and analyzed.ResultsA total of 298 surveys were filled out. The most-prescribed antibiotic was amoxicillin or amoxicillin with clavulanic acid or macrolides for allergic patients. The administration of two grams of amoxicillin one hour before surgery was the most widely used prescriptive protocol for prophylaxis. International guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis for infective endocarditis were only partially followed. The most heterogeneous results emerged for prophylaxis associated with dental implants or provided prior to surgical third-molar extraction.ConclusionsThe present study shows widespread antibiotic prescriptive heterogeneity among the sample of dentists analyzed, especially in conditions where international guidelines are lacking. An evidence-based consensus on prescriptive modalities in dentistry would be desirable in the near future.
| S-EPMC10886335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to assess the reliability of two intraoral surface scanners for the representation of the alveolar process in vivo. Complete maxillary scans (CS 3600, Carestream and TRIOS 3, 3Shape) were repeatedly obtained from 13 fully dentate individuals. Scanner precision and agreement were tested using 3D surface superimpositions on the following reference areas: the buccal front teeth area, the entire dental arch, the entire alveolar process, or single teeth by applying an iterative closest point algorithm. Following each superimposition, the mean absolute distance (MAD) between predefined 3D model surfaces was calculated. Outcomes were analyzed through non-parametric statistics and the visualization of color-coded distance maps. When superimpositions were performed on the alveolar process, the median scanner precision was below 0.05 mm, with statistically significant but negligible differences between scanners. The agreement between the scanners was approximately 0.06 mm. When single-tooth superimpositions were used to assess the precision of adjacent alveolar soft-tissue surfaces, the median error was 0.028 mm, and there was higher agreement between the scanners. The in vivo reliability of the intraoral scanners in the alveolar surface area was high overall. Single-tooth superimpositions should be preferred for the optimal assessment of neighboring alveolar surface areas relative to the dentition.
| S-EPMC9655054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: New intraoral (IOS) and laboratory scanners appear in the market and their trueness and precision have not been compared. (2) Methods: Seven IOS and two laboratory scanners were used to scan a mandibular edentulous model with four parallel internal hexagon implant analogues and PEEK scan bodies. Digital models in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) were created. The master model with the scan bodies was scanned (×10) with a computerized numerical control 3D Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). The short (distances of adjacent scan posts) and long distances (distances of the scan posts with non-adjacent sites in the arch) among the centroids of the four analogues were calculated using CMM special software. Trueness (comparisons with the master model) and precision (intragroup comparisons) were statistically compared with ANOVA, chi-square and Tukey tests. (3) Results: Laboratory scanners had the best trueness and precision compared to all IOSs for long distances. Only iTero (Align Technologies Inc., Milpitas, CA, USA) had comparable trueness with one laboratory scanner in short and long distances. For short distances, CS3600 (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA), Omnicam, Primescan (Sirona Dental Sys-tems GmbH, Bens-heim, Germany) and TRIOS 4 (3Shape A/S, Copen-hagen, Denmark) had similar trueness to one laboratory scanner. From those, only Omnicam and Primescan had similar precision as the same laboratory scanner. Most IOSs seem to work better for smaller distances and are less precise in cross-arch distances. (4) Conclusions: The laboratory scanners showed significantly higher trueness and precision than all IOSs tested for the long-distance group; for the short distance, some IOSs were not different in trueness and precision than the laboratory scanners.
| S-EPMC9857767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch scans acquired using five intraoral scanners and investigate the factors associated with the dimensional accuracy of the intraoral scan data.MethodsNine adult participants (mean age, 34.3 ± 8.3 years) were recruited. Four zirconium spheres (Ø 6 mm) were bonded to the canines and the molars. Following acquisition of reference scans using an industrial-grade scanner, five intraoral scanners, namely i500, CS3600, Trios 3, iTero, and CEREC Omnicam, were used to scan the arches. Linear distances between the four reference spheres were automatically calculated, and linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare the trueness and precision of the intraoral scan data among the different scanners.ResultsThe absolute mean trueness and precision values for all intraoral scanners were 76.6 ± 79.3 and 56.6 ± 52.4 μm, respectively. The type of scanner and the measured linear distances had significant effects on the accuracy of the intraoral scan data. With regard to trueness, errors in the intermolar dimension and the distance from the canine to the contralateral molar were greater with Omnicam than with the other scanners. With regard to precision, the error in the linear distance from the canine to the molar in the same quadrant was greater with Omnicam and CS3600 than with the other scanners.ConclusionsThe dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.
| S-EPMC7940805 | biostudies-literature