Jan-Frederik Güth1, Cornelius Runkel2, Florian Beuer3, Michael Stimmelmayr2, Daniel Edelhoff2, Christine Keul2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Goethestraße 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. jan_frederik.gueth@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Goethestraße 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité, Aßmannshauser Straße 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Direct and indirect digitalization offer two options for computer-aided design (CAD)/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-generated restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners and compare them to the process of indirect digitalization. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A titanium testing model was directly digitized 12 times with each intraoral scanner: (1) CS 3500 (CS), (2) Zfx Intrascan (ZFX), (3) CEREC AC Bluecam (BLU), (4) CEREC AC Omnicam (OC) and (5) True Definition (TD). As control, 12 polyether impressions were taken and the referring plaster casts were digitized indirectly with the D-810 laboratory scanner (CON). The accuracy (trueness/precision) of the datasets was evaluated by an analysing software (Geomagic Qualify 12.1) using a "best fit alignment" of the datasets with a highly accurate reference dataset of the testing model, received from industrial computed tomography. RESULTS: Direct digitalization using the TD showed the significant highest overall "trueness", followed by CS. Both performed better than CON. BLU, ZFX and OC showed higher differences from the reference dataset than CON. Regarding the overall "precision", the CS 3500 intraoral scanner and the True Definition showed the best performance. CON, BLU and OC resulted in significantly higher precision than ZFX did. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the ascertained datasets was dependent on the scanning system. The direct digitalization was not superior to indirect digitalization for all tested systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regarding the accuracy, all tested intraoral scanning technologies seem to be able to reproduce a single quadrant within clinical acceptable accuracy. However, differences were detected between the tested systems.
OBJECTIVES: Direct and indirect digitalization offer two options for computer-aided design (CAD)/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-generated restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners and compare them to the process of indirect digitalization. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A titanium testing model was directly digitized 12 times with each intraoral scanner: (1) CS 3500 (CS), (2) Zfx Intrascan (ZFX), (3) CEREC AC Bluecam (BLU), (4) CEREC AC Omnicam (OC) and (5) True Definition (TD). As control, 12 polyether impressions were taken and the referring plaster casts were digitized indirectly with the D-810 laboratory scanner (CON). The accuracy (trueness/precision) of the datasets was evaluated by an analysing software (Geomagic Qualify 12.1) using a "best fit alignment" of the datasets with a highly accurate reference dataset of the testing model, received from industrial computed tomography. RESULTS: Direct digitalization using the TD showed the significant highest overall "trueness", followed by CS. Both performed better than CON. BLU, ZFX and OC showed higher differences from the reference dataset than CON. Regarding the overall "precision", the CS 3500 intraoral scanner and the True Definition showed the best performance. CON, BLU and OC resulted in significantly higher precision than ZFX did. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the ascertained datasets was dependent on the scanning system. The direct digitalization was not superior to indirect digitalization for all tested systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regarding the accuracy, all tested intraoral scanning technologies seem to be able to reproduce a single quadrant within clinical acceptable accuracy. However, differences were detected between the tested systems.
Entities:
Keywords:
Accuracy; Digital impression; Impression; Intraoral scanner; STL datasets