Literature DB >> 26454734

A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro.

Jan-Frederik Güth1, Daniel Edelhoff2, Josef Schweiger2, Christine Keul2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Introducing a new approach to evaluate the accuracy of digital impression methods for full-arch scans, avoiding "best-fit alignment."
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lower jaw model with a straight metal bar between the second molars of both quadrants was directly digitized using an intraoral scanner (True Definition, TRD, n = 12) and indirectly digitized (D810, CON, n = 12) after impression and plaster cast. A dataset of the bar from a coordinate measuring machine served as reference (REF). Datasets obtained from test groups were analyzed using inspection software to determine the aberration of the bar length, the linear shift (in X-, Y-, Z-axis) and the angle deviation (α overall, α coronal, α horizontal) caused by the digitalization method. Mann-Whitney U and unpaired two-sample Student's t test were implemented to detect differences. The level of significance was set at 5 %.
RESULTS: Concerning the bar length, no significant differences were found between groups. In view of the linear shift, CON showed significantly higher values than TRD in Y-axis (p = 0.003) and in Z-axis (p = 0.040). Regarding the angle measurement, TRD showed significant smaller values than CON for α overall (p = 0.006) and for α coronal (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: This in vitro study shows that intraoral scanning systems seem to show the same or even higher accuracy than the conventional impression with subsequent indirect digitalization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoral scanners have proven excellent accuracy for single teeth or small spans. However, insufficient data is available about their accuracy for full-arch scans. The presented new approach seems to be suitable to precisely analyze differences in the accuracy of different digitalization methods without using best-fit alignment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Accuracy; CAD/CAM; Digital impression; Digital workflow; Full-arch scan; Intraoral scanner

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26454734     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1626-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  26 in total

1.  Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination.

Authors:  Deepa T Chandran; Daryll C Jagger; Robert G Jagger; Michele E Barbour
Journal:  Biomed Mater Eng       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.300

2.  Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera.

Authors:  A Mehl; A Ender; W Mörmann; T Attin
Journal:  Int J Comput Dent       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.883

3.  Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.

Authors:  Beatriz Giménez; Mutlu Özcan; Francisco Martínez-Rus; Guillermo Pradíes
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.932

4.  Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.

Authors:  Tabea V Flügge; Stefan Schlager; Katja Nelson; Susanne Nahles; Marc C Metzger
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?

Authors:  Gordon J Christensen
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.634

6.  Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters.

Authors:  Beatriz Giménez; Guillermo Pradíes; Francisco Martínez-Rus; Mutlu Özcan
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

7.  Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems.

Authors:  A Ender; A Mehl
Journal:  Int J Comput Dent       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.883

8.  Influence of prolonged setting time on permanent deformation of elastomeric impression materials.

Authors:  Markus Balkenhol; Sylvia Haunschild; Christina Erbe; Bernd Wöstmann
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 3.426

9.  In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.

Authors:  Andreas Ender; Albert Mehl
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 1.677

10.  Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology.

Authors:  Wicher J van der Meer; Frank S Andriessen; Daniel Wismeijer; Yijin Ren
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  25 in total

1.  Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.

Authors:  Christine Keul; Jan-Frederik Güth
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Can lithium disilicate ceramic crowns be fabricated on the basis of CBCT data?

Authors:  Ana Elisa Colle Kauling; Christine Keul; Kurt Erdelt; Jan Kühnisch; Jan-Frederik Güth
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance.

Authors:  Mohammad A Atieh; André V Ritter; Ching-Chang Ko; Ibrahim Duqum
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2017-02-17       Impact factor: 3.426

4.  The transfer accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions influenced by fixed orthodontic appliances: a reference aid-based in vitro study.

Authors:  Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz; Katharina Klaus; Alexander Schmidt; Bernd Wöstmann; Marco Mersmann; Sabine Ruf; Niko Christian Bock
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-09-15       Impact factor: 3.606

5.  Influence of Scanner Precision and Analysis Software in Quantifying Three-Dimensional Intraoral Changes: Two-Factor Factorial Experimental Design.

Authors:  Saoirse O'Toole; David Bartlett; Andrew Keeling; John McBride; Eduardo Bernabe; Luuk Crins; Bas Loomans
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.

Authors:  Mario Imburgia; Silvia Logozzo; Uli Hauschild; Giovanni Veronesi; Carlo Mangano; Francesco Guido Mangano
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 2.757

7.  Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions.

Authors:  Priscilla Medina-Sotomayor; Agustín Pascual-Moscardó; Isabel Camps
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2018-04-01

8.  Can Dental Office Lighting Intensity Conditions Influence the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning?

Authors:  Anca Jivanescu; Andrei-Bogdan Faur; Raul Nicolae Rotar
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 1.932

Review 9.  Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review.

Authors:  Minoru Sanda; Keita Miyoshi; Kazuyoshi Baba
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-07-27

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

Authors:  Francesco G Mangano; Giovanni Veronesi; Uli Hauschild; Eitan Mijiritsky; Carlo Mangano
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.