Dataset Information

In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans. RESULTS:Compared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques. CONCLUSIONS:Optical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions.

SUBMITTER: Roig E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7046187 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants.

Roig Elena E Garza Luis Carlos LC Álvarez-Maldonado Natalia N Maia Paulo P Costa Santiago S Roig Miguel M Espona José J

PloS one 20200227 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Sh ...[more]

PMID: 32106275

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: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.

Dataset Information

In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants.

Publications

In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets