Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jacob HB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4623872 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners.
Jacob Helder B HB Wyatt Graydon D GD Buschang Peter H PH
Progress in orthodontics 20151027
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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, ...[more]
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:Thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity in the injured region is a common complication. Although it is well known clinically that thermal and mechanical sensitivity of the oral mucosa is different from that of the skin, the mechanisms underlying injured pain of the oral mucosa remain poorly understood. The transient receptor potential (TRP) vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) and TRP ankyrin 1 (TRPA1) in primary afferent neurons are known to contribute to pathological pain. Therefore, we investigated whether TRPV1 and/or TRPA1 contribute to thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity following oral mucosa or whisker pad skin incision. Strong heat and mechanical and cold hypersensitivity was caused in the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin following incisions. On day 3 after the incisions, the number of TRPV1-immunoreactive (IR) and TRPA1-IR trigeminal ganglion (TG) neurons innervating the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin was significantly increased, and the number of TRPV1/TRPA1-IR TG neurons innervating whisker pad skin, but not the buccal mucosa, was significantly increased. Administration of the TRPV1 antagonist, SB366791, to the incised site produced a significant suppression of heat hyperalgesia in both the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin, as well as mechanical allodynia in the whisker pad skin. Administration of the TRPA1 antagonist, HC-030031, to the incised site suppressed mechanical allodynia and cold hyperalgesia in both the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin, as well as heat hyperalgesia in the whisker pad skin. These findings indicate that altered expressions of TRPV1 and TRPA1 in TG neurons are involved in thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity following the buccal mucosa and whisker pad skin incision. Moreover, diverse changes in the number of TRPV1 and TRPA1 coexpressed TG neurons in whisker pad skin-incised rats may contribute to the intracellular interactions of TRPV1 and TRPA1 associated with whisker pad skin incision, whereas TRPV1 and TRPA1 expression in individual TG neurons is involved in buccal mucosa-incised pain.
| S-EPMC4814018 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Objectives: The aim is to measure the influence of different intraoral (crowding and molar inclination) and extraoral (surface material and ambient light) conditions on the efficacy and efficiency of intraoral scanning. (2) Methods: In a controlled in vitro experimental study, the samples were divided into six groups showing two types of intraoral conditions-lower incisor crowding (groups 1-3) and lower molar mesial tipping (groups 4-6). Each modified model was replicated using three types of materials with different light-absorption properties (n = 18 models). Each sample was scanned 30 times at light intensities of 0.0, 1800, or 3600 l×, yielding 3240 scans. Scanning efficiency (digital acquisition; scanning chair-time; and scanning failures) and scanning efficacy (undetected volume) were assessed using virtual superimpositions and Mecano Equate software. The intra- and interobserver error and reliability of the method were calculated and data analyses were performed using the t-test, paired t-test, and one-way analysis of variance (p < 0.05). (3) Results: Digital acquisition was influenced by the degree of crowding and molar inclination (p < 0.05). The scanning surface material affected the efficacy and efficiency, which were lower with a calcium sulfate hemihydrate A modified compound scanning surface (p < 0.05). Higher intensities of ambient light in the scanning room were associated with reduced scanning efficacy (p < 0.05). Moreover, the scanner showed greater amounts of undetected volume as the degrees of crowding and mesial tipping of the lower second molar increased over 25°, with mean error values of 0.97 mm3 and 1.12 mm3, respectively. (4) Conclusions: For scanning procedures employing digital acquisition, differences in the degrees of crowding and mesial tipping of the lower second molar, scanning surface material, and external light source intensity influence the efficacy and efficiency of the scanning procedures, scanning chair-time, scanning failures, and undetected volume.
| S-EPMC7565800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical photography in dentistry has become a vital part of dental education and clinical practice. Dental students seek demonstrations that help them visualize and understand new concepts and clinical procedures. Few multimedia resources are available that provide instruction regarding clinical photography for dental students. The concept videos serve as adjunctive teaching tools for predoctoral dental students in taking clinical photographs.MethodsI created the three concept videos on intraoral and extraoral photography by recording narrated PowerPoint slideshows. After sessions on basic photography concepts and digital camera operation, I used concept videos to show how to take comprehensive quality dental photographs in a step-by-step manner and to demonstrate positions of an operator and a patient. I collected feedback using an electronic survey sent to all 33 third-year dental students who participated.ResultsEleven students completed the survey; all students responded favorably to this method of instruction. Individual comments were also positive on helpfulness, conciseness, and applicability.DiscussionThese concept videos were shown to be a helpful resource for dental students in enhancing their knowledge and skills in obtaining dental photographs. Multimedia resources that helped provide students with practical tips and suggestions could supplement clinical chair-side teaching with faculty and further advance their knowledge and skills. Future studies could include more interactive platforms for better student utilization of the resource, and also compare students' performance before and after watching the videos.
| S-EPMC7780737 | 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: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 aim of this study was to two-dimensionally evaluate deviation errors at five digital cross-sections of single-tooth abutment in regards to data obtained from two intraoral scanners, and to evaluate accuracy of individual scanners. Two intraoral scanners, the Trios 3® (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and EzScan® (Vatech, Hwaseong, Korea), were evaluated by utilizing 13 stone models. The superimposed 3D data files were sectioned into five different planes: buccal-lingual section (BL), mesial-distal section (MD), transverse high section (TH), transverse middle section (TM), and transverse low section (TL). Accuracy comparison between the two scanners in 5 groups was performed. BL vs. MD of each scanner, and three transverse groups (TH, TM, TL) of each scanner were analyzed for accuracy comparison. In comparison of 2-D analyses for two intraoral scanners, Trios 3® showed statistically significant higher accuracy in root mean square (RMS) at BL, TH, and TL (p < 0.05). For each scanner, RMS value showed that mesial-distal sections were more prone to error than buccal-lingual section, which exhibited statistically significant errors (p < 0.05) while the transverse groups did not. Two-dimensional analysis is more insightful than three-dimensional analysis on single-tooth abutment. In mesiodistal areas, rough prepped areas, and sharp edges where scanner accessibility is difficult, high deviation errors are shown.
| S-EPMC6466129 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE (AIMS):Measurement error of intraoral quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been assessed using traditional methods for reliability, such as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Most studies reporting QST reliability focused on assessing one source of measurement error at a time, e.g., inter- or intra-examiner (test-retest) reliabilities and employed two examiners to test inter-examiner reliability. The present study used a complex design with multiple examiners with the aim of assessing the reliability of intraoral QST taking account of multiple sources of error simultaneously. METHODS:Four examiners of varied experience assessed 12 healthy participants in two visits separated by 48h. Seven QST procedures to determine sensory thresholds were used: cold detection (CDT), warmth detection (WDT), cold pain (CPT), heat pain (HPT), mechanical detection (MDT), mechanical pain (MPT) and pressure pain (PPT). Mixed linear models were used to estimate variance components for reliability assessment; dependability coefficients were used to simulate alternative test scenarios. RESULTS:Most intraoral QST variability arose from differences between participants (8.8-30.5%), differences between visits within participant (4.6-52.8%), and error (13.3-28.3%). For QST procedures other than CDT and MDT, increasing the number of visits with a single examiner performing the procedures would lead to improved dependability (dependability coefficient ranges: single visit, four examiners=0.12-0.54; four visits, single examiner=0.27-0.68). A wide range of reliabilities for QST procedures, as measured by ICCs, was noted for inter- (0.39-0.80) and intra-examiner (0.10-0.62) variation. CONCLUSION:Reliability of sensory testing can be better assessed by measuring multiple sources of error simultaneously instead of focusing on one source at a time. In experimental settings, large numbers of participants are needed to obtain accurate estimates of treatment effects based on QST measurements. This is different from clinical use, where variation between persons (the person main effect) is not a concern because clinical measurements are done on a single person. IMPLICATIONS:Future studies assessing sensory testing reliability in both clinical and experimental settings would benefit from routinely measuring multiple sources of error. The methods and results of this study can be used by clinical researchers to improve assessment of measurement error related to intraoral sensory testing. This should lead to improved resource allocation when designing studies that use intraoral quantitative sensory testing in clinical and experimental settings.
| S-EPMC5598789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUNDS:Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems. METHODS:Digital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS:The deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53?±?2??m) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156?±?8??m) and CS 3600 (365?±?29??m), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531?±?26??m), Element 2 (246?±?11??m), Emerald (317?±?13??m), Omnicam (174?±?11??m), Planscan (903?±?49??m). CONCLUSIONS:The physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement.
| S-EPMC7137345 | biostudies-literature