OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and time efficiency of an indirect and direct digitalization workflow with that of a three-dimensional (3D) printer in order to identify the most suitable method for orthodontic use. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A master model was measured with a coordinate measuring instrument. The distances measured were the intercanine width, the intermolar width, and the dental arch length. Sixty-four scans were taken with each of the desktop scanners R900 and R700 (3Shape), the intraoral scanner TRIOS Color Pod (3Shape), and the Promax 3D Mid cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit (Planmeca). All scans were measured with measuring software. One scan was selected and printed 37 times on the D35 stereolithographic 3D printer (Innovation MediTech). The printed models were measured again using the coordinate measuring instrument. RESULTS: The most accurate results were obtained by the R900. The R700 and the TRIOS intraoral scanner showed comparable results. CBCT-3D-rendering with the Promax 3D Mid CBCT unit revealed significantly higher accuracy with regard to dental casts than dental impressions. 3D printing offered a significantly higher level of deviation than digitalization with desktop scanners or an intraoral scanner. The chairside time required for digital impressions was 27% longer than for conventional impressions. CONCLUSION: Conventional impressions, model casting, and optional digitization with desktop scanners remains the recommended workflow process. For orthodontic demands, intraoral scanners are a useful alternative for full-arch scans. For prosthodontic use, the scanning scope should be less than one quadrant and three additional teeth.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and time efficiency of an indirect and direct digitalization workflow with that of a three-dimensional (3D) printer in order to identify the most suitable method for orthodontic use. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A master model was measured with a coordinate measuring instrument. The distances measured were the intercanine width, the intermolar width, and the dental arch length. Sixty-four scans were taken with each of the desktop scanners R900 and R700 (3Shape), the intraoral scanner TRIOS Color Pod (3Shape), and the Promax 3D Mid cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit (Planmeca). All scans were measured with measuring software. One scan was selected and printed 37 times on the D35 stereolithographic 3D printer (Innovation MediTech). The printed models were measured again using the coordinate measuring instrument. RESULTS: The most accurate results were obtained by the R900. The R700 and the TRIOS intraoral scanner showed comparable results. CBCT-3D-rendering with the Promax 3D Mid CBCT unit revealed significantly higher accuracy with regard to dental casts than dental impressions. 3D printing offered a significantly higher level of deviation than digitalization with desktop scanners or an intraoral scanner. The chairside time required for digital impressions was 27% longer than for conventional impressions. CONCLUSION: Conventional impressions, model casting, and optional digitization with desktop scanners remains the recommended workflow process. For orthodontic demands, intraoral scanners are a useful alternative for full-arch scans. For prosthodontic use, the scanning scope should be less than one quadrant and three additional teeth.
Authors: Maria Francesca Sfondrini; Paola Gandini; Maurizio Malfatto; Francesco Di Corato; Federico Trovati; Andrea Scribante Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Maciej Jedliński; Marta Mazur; Katarzyna Grocholewicz; Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 3.390