Dataset Information

Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology.

Methods

Two 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusions

Although 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.

SUBMITTER: Mangano FG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5042463 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to investigate the trueness of intraoral scanning of residual ridge in edentulous regions during in vitro evaluation of inter-operator validity. METHODS:Both edentulous maxillary and partially edentulous mandibular models were selected as a simulation model. As reference data, scanning of two models was performed using a dental laboratory scanner (D900, 3Shape A/S). Five dentists used an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 2, 3Shape A/S) five times to capture intraoral scanner data, and the "zig-zag" scanning technique was used. They did not have experience with using intraoral scanners in clinical treatment. The intraoral scanner data was overlapped with the reference data (Dental System, 3Shape A/S). Regarding differences that occurred between the reference and intraoral scanner data, the vertical maximum distance of the difference and the integral value obtained by integrating the total distance were analyzed. RESULTS:In terms of the maximum distances of the difference on the maxillary model, the means of five operators were as follows: premolar region, 0.30?mm; molar region, 0.18?mm; and midline region, 0.18?mm. The integral values were as follows: premolar region, 4.17?mm2; molar region, 6.82?mm2; and midline region, 4.70?mm2. Significant inter-operator differences were observed with regard to the integral values of the distance in the premolar and midline regions and with regard to the maximum distance in the premolar region, respectively. The maximum distances of the difference in the free end saddles on mandibular model were as follows: right side, 0.05?mm; and left side, 0.08?mm. The areas were as follows: right side, 0.78?mm2; and left side, 1.60?mm2. No significant inter-operator differences were observed in either region. CONCLUSIONS:The present study demonstrated satisfactory trueness of intraoral scanning of the residual ridge in edentulous regions during in vitro evaluation of inter-operator validity.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intraoral scanners (IOSs) in implantology represent a viable approach for single teeth or partial arches. However, when used for complete edentulous arches or long-span edentulous areas, it has been demonstrated that there is a need for improvement of IOS-related techniques. Therefore, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the trueness and precision of a complete arch digital impression on four and six implants taken with or without a customized, prosthetic-based impression template. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Two experimental models were prepared, representative of a complete edentulous mandible restored with four and six implants with built-in scan abutments. Models were scanned with (test group, TG) or without (control group, CG) the prosthetic-based impression template. Eight scans were taken for each model. The time needed to take impressions, error, trueness, and precision were evaluated. A statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS:In the case of four implants, the time needed for the impression was 128.7 ± 55.3 s in the TG and 81.0 ± 23.5 s in the CG (p = 0.0416). With six scan abutments, the time was 197.5 ± 26.8 and 110.6 ± 25.2 s in the TG and CG, respectively (p = 0.0000). In the TG, no errors were experienced, while in the CG, 13 impressions were retaken due to incorrect stitching processes. In the four-implant impression, the mean angle deviation was 0.252 ± 0.068° (95% CI 0.021-0.115°) in the CG and 0.134 ± 0.053° (95% CI 0.016-0.090°) in the TG. The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002). In the six-implant impression, the mean angle deviation was 0.373 ± 0.117° (95% CI 0.036-0.198°) in the CG and 0.100 ± 0.029° (95% CI 0.009-0.049°) in the TG (p = 0.000). In the TG, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean angle deviation within the group (p > 0.05), but there were in the CG. A colorimetric analysis showed higher deviations from the original model for the six-implant impression without a prosthetic template. CONCLUSIONS:Although all of the impressions exhibited deviation from the original model in the range of clinical acceptability, the prosthetic-based impression template significantly improved the trueness and precision of complete edentulous arches rehabilitated with four or six implants, making the complete arch digital impression more predictable.