Dataset Information

Applying intraoral scanner to residual ridge in edentulous regions: in vitro evaluation of inter-operator validity to confirm trueness.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Tasaka A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6889518 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Applying intraoral scanner to residual ridge in edentulous regions: in vitro evaluation of inter-operator validity to confirm trueness.

Tasaka Akinori A Uekubo Yuuki Y Mitsui Tomoharu T Kasahara Takao T Takanashi Takuya T Homma Shinya S Matsunaga Satoru S Abe Shinichi S Yoshinari Masao M Yajima Yasutomo Y Sakurai Kaoru K Yamashita Shuichiro S

BMC oral health 20191202 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 31791324

Similar Datasets

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.

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:The advancement of intraoral scanners has allowed for more efficient workflow in the dental clinical setting. However, limited data exist regarding the accuracy of the digital impressions produced with various scanner settings and scanning approaches. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions at the crown preparation margin using different scanning resolutions of a specific intraoral scanner system. An all-ceramic crown preparation of a mandibular first molar was constructed in a typodont, and a scan (n = 3) was created with an industrial-grade laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) as the control. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) under three settings-high resolution (HR), standard resolution (SR), and combined resolution (SHR). Comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed with Geomagic Control X software to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the control scan along the preparation finish line. The scan time and number of images captured per scan were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson's correlation, and Dunnett's T3 test (? = 0.05). Significant differences were observed for scan time and for number of images captured among scan resolution settings (? < 0.05). The scan time for the SR group was, on average, 34.2 s less than the SHR group and 46.5 s less than the HR group. For discrepancy on the finish line, no significant differences were observed among scanning resolutions (HR: 31.5 ± 5.5 ?m, SHR: 33.2 ± 3.7 ?m, SR: 33.6 ± 3.1 ?m). Significant differences in discrepancy were observed among tooth surfaces, with the distal surface showing the highest discrepancies. In conclusion, the resolution of the intra-oral scanner is primarily defined by the system hardware and optimized for default scans. A software high-resolution mode that obtains more data over a longer time may not necessarily benefit the scan accuracy, while the tooth preparation and surface parameters do affect the accuracy.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate tooth wear in young adults, intraoral scanning was used for digital monitoring of the mandibular first molar over 12 months. A possible influence of aetiological factors obtained by a questionnaire on tooth wear was investigated.Materials and methodsA total of 109 participants (mean age at the start of the study: 21.0 ± 2.2 years) were included in this clinical study. At baseline (T0), an intraoral scan (Trios 3, 3Shape) of the study tooth (FDI # 36 or #46) was conducted. After a mean observation period of 373 ± 19 days, a second intraoral scan (T1, n = 94) of the same tooth as at T0 was performed and standard tessellation language datasets were superimposed with 3D analysis software (GOM Inspect). The occlusal surface of the study tooth was divided into 7 areas (5 cusps, 2 ridges) and maximum vertical substance loss was measured between T0 and T1 (n = 91). Three types of tooth wear were defined: cupping (C), facet (F) and combined cupping-facet (CF). Furthermore, a questionnaire on aetiological factors, such as dietary behaviour, was filled out at T0. Data were analysed with non-parametric tests (p < 0.05).ResultsOnly one study tooth exhibited no tooth wear at T0, whereas 3 teeth showed C, 47 teeth F and 40 teeth CF. A progression of vertical substance loss for all three types was shown. Most affected were the mesiobuccal cusps (43, 38/47 µm; median, 95%CI) followed by distobuccal (36, 33/39 µm), mesiolingual (35, 26/40 µm), distolingual (34, 27/36 µm) and distal (31, 25/34 µm). On mesial and distal ridges, only F was detected with the lowest vertical substance loss of all areas (mesial ridge: 0, 0/0 µm; distal ridge: 0, 0/0 µm). An association between aetiological factors and loss values could not be shown.ConclusionsAll study teeth showed clear signs of wear, and after only 1 year, further substance loss was detectable. This result is of significance for young adults.Clinical relevanceSince data of young adults regarding tooth wear are scarce, the results give a first idea of the amount of vertical loss per year and its relation to aetiological factors such as dietary behaviour. Therefore, further studies over a longer observation period are highly recommended.

Dataset Information

Applying intraoral scanner to residual ridge in edentulous regions: in vitro evaluation of inter-operator validity to confirm trueness.

Publications

Applying intraoral scanner to residual ridge in edentulous regions: in vitro evaluation of inter-operator validity to confirm trueness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets