OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of four different digital intraoral scanners and the effects of buccal brackets and orthodontic wire. METHODS: For this study, three sets of models (Control model, BKT model with buccal bracket, and WBKT model with buccal bracket and orthodontic wire) were scanned using four different types of intraoral scanners: E4D dentist, iTero, Trios, and Zfx IntraScan. The mesiodistal width of the teeth, intercanine width, and intermolar width measured by four scanners were compared. Three-dimensional (3D) images of the brackets were taken using the four scanners. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, independent t test, and post-hoc Tukey test at a significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: When comparing the 3D images with manual measurements using a traditional caliper, iTero and Trios showed the highest accuracy in horizontal measurements.iTero had the lowest values in Devmax-min of maxillary intermolar and intercanine widths (0.16 mm and 0.20 mm, respectively), whereas Trios had the lowest values in Devmax-min of mandibular intermolar and intercanine widths (0.36 mm and 0.14 mm, respectively). The horizontal variables were barely affected by the presence of buccal brackets and orthodontic wire. Comparison of 3D bracket images scanned by the four scanners showed differences in image distortion among the scanners. Bracket characteristics did not affect the 3D bracket images. CONCLUSIONS: The four intraoral scanners used in this study differed in accuracy. However, the results acquired by iTero and Trios were more reliable. Effects of buccal brackets and orthodontic wire on the 3D images taken by intraoral scanners were not clinically significant.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of four different digital intraoral scanners and the effects of buccal brackets and orthodontic wire. METHODS: For this study, three sets of models (Control model, BKT model with buccal bracket, and WBKT model with buccal bracket and orthodontic wire) were scanned using four different types of intraoral scanners: E4D dentist, iTero, Trios, and Zfx IntraScan. The mesiodistal width of the teeth, intercanine width, and intermolar width measured by four scanners were compared. Three-dimensional (3D) images of the brackets were taken using the four scanners. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, independent t test, and post-hoc Tukey test at a significance level of P < 0.05. RESULTS: When comparing the 3D images with manual measurements using a traditional caliper, iTero and Trios showed the highest accuracy in horizontal measurements.iTero had the lowest values in Devmax-min of maxillary intermolar and intercanine widths (0.16 mm and 0.20 mm, respectively), whereas Trios had the lowest values in Devmax-min of mandibular intermolar and intercanine widths (0.36 mm and 0.14 mm, respectively). The horizontal variables were barely affected by the presence of buccal brackets and orthodontic wire. Comparison of 3D bracket images scanned by the four scanners showed differences in image distortion among the scanners. Bracket characteristics did not affect the 3D bracket images. CONCLUSIONS: The four intraoral scanners used in this study differed in accuracy. However, the results acquired by iTero and Trios were more reliable. Effects of buccal brackets and orthodontic wire on the 3D images taken by intraoral scanners were not clinically significant.
Authors: Isidora Christopoulou; Eleftherios G Kaklamanos; Miltiadis A Makrygiannakis; Ilias Bitsanis; Paula Perlea; Apostolos I Tsolakis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390