Il-Do Jeong1, Jae-Jun Lee2, Jin-Hun Jeon3, Ji-Hwan Kim4, Hae-Young Kim5, Woong-Chul Kim6. 1. Doctoral student, Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Master student, Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Technology, Medical Campus, KyungDong University, Gangwon-do, Republic of Korea. 4. Professor, Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Associate Professor, Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science & Department of Public Health Sciences, Graduate School & BK21PLUS Program in Public Health Sciences, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. Professor, Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: kuc2842@korea.ac.kr.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Information on the accuracy of intraoral video scanners for long-span areas is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the trueness and precision of an intraoral video scanner, an intraoral still image scanner, and a blue-light scanner for the production of digital impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Reference scan data were obtained by scanning a complete-arch model. An identical model was scanned 8 times using an intraoral video scanner (CEREC Omnicam; Sirona) and an intraoral still image scanner (CEREC Bluecam; Sirona), and stone casts made from conventional impressions of the same model were scanned 8 times with a blue-light scanner as a control (Identica Blue; Medit). Accuracy consists of trueness (the extent to which the scan data differ from the reference scan) and precision (the similarity of the data from multiple scans). To evaluate precision, 8 scans were superimposed using 3-dimensional analysis software; the reference scan data were then superimposed to determine the trueness. Differences were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey HSD tests (α=.05). RESULTS: Trueness in the video scanner group was not significantly different from that in the control group. However, the video scanner group showed significantly lower values than those of the still image scanner group for all variables (P<.05), except in tolerance range. The root mean square, standard deviations, and mean negative precision values for the video scanner group were significantly higher than those for the other groups (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions obtained by the intraoral video scanner showed better accuracy for long-span areas than those captured by the still image scanner. However, the video scanner was less accurate than the laboratory scanner.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Information on the accuracy of intraoral video scanners for long-span areas is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the trueness and precision of an intraoral video scanner, an intraoral still image scanner, and a blue-light scanner for the production of digital impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Reference scan data were obtained by scanning a complete-arch model. An identical model was scanned 8 times using an intraoral video scanner (CEREC Omnicam; Sirona) and an intraoral still image scanner (CEREC Bluecam; Sirona), and stone casts made from conventional impressions of the same model were scanned 8 times with a blue-light scanner as a control (Identica Blue; Medit). Accuracy consists of trueness (the extent to which the scan data differ from the reference scan) and precision (the similarity of the data from multiple scans). To evaluate precision, 8 scans were superimposed using 3-dimensional analysis software; the reference scan data were then superimposed to determine the trueness. Differences were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey HSD tests (α=.05). RESULTS: Trueness in the video scanner group was not significantly different from that in the control group. However, the video scanner group showed significantly lower values than those of the still image scanner group for all variables (P<.05), except in tolerance range. The root mean square, standard deviations, and mean negative precision values for the video scanner group were significantly higher than those for the other groups (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions obtained by the intraoral video scanner showed better accuracy for long-span areas than those captured by the still image scanner. However, the video scanner was less accurate than the laboratory scanner.