Shota Fukazawa1, Chikayuki Odaira1, Hisatomo Kondo2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Oral Implantology, School of Dentistry, Iwate Medical University, 19-1 Uchimaru, Morioka 020-8505, Japan. 2. Department of Prosthodontics and Oral Implantology, School of Dentistry, Iwate Medical University, 19-1 Uchimaru, Morioka 020-8505, Japan. Electronic address: hisakondo@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined the accuracy, including trueness and precision, of the intraoral scanners comparing with laboratory scanner to reveal the error level of intraoral scanners. METHODS: Measurements were performed using a computer numerical control coordinate measuring machine (CNCCMM) of the reference models as a control. Subsequently, intraoral scanners and a laboratory scanner were used for measurements of the reference trueness and precision of the distance were evaluated by image analyzing software. RESULTS: With regard to reference model, there was a significant difference between in the trueness measured by C.O.S. (COS) and that measured by the other scanners. The trueness measured by the second-generation 3M™ true definition scanner (TDS2) and third-generation 3M™ true definition scanner (TDS3) was bigger than the one by TRIOS (TR) and KaVo (KA). With regard to reference model "B," error of the trueness measured by COS was significantly bigger, compared with the one measured by the other scanners. However, error range of intraoral scanners, except for COS, was considerably small and it should be covered with cement space. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicated that an optical impression method with an intraoral scanner could be applied to the implant therapy for multiple teeth missing.
PURPOSE: We examined the accuracy, including trueness and precision, of the intraoral scanners comparing with laboratory scanner to reveal the error level of intraoral scanners. METHODS: Measurements were performed using a computer numerical control coordinate measuring machine (CNCCMM) of the reference models as a control. Subsequently, intraoral scanners and a laboratory scanner were used for measurements of the reference trueness and precision of the distance were evaluated by image analyzing software. RESULTS: With regard to reference model, there was a significant difference between in the trueness measured by C.O.S. (COS) and that measured by the other scanners. The trueness measured by the second-generation 3M™ true definition scanner (TDS2) and third-generation 3M™ true definition scanner (TDS3) was bigger than the one by TRIOS (TR) and KaVo (KA). With regard to reference model "B," error of the trueness measured by COS was significantly bigger, compared with the one measured by the other scanners. However, error range of intraoral scanners, except for COS, was considerably small and it should be covered with cement space. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicated that an optical impression method with an intraoral scanner could be applied to the implant therapy for multiple teeth missing.