OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) image data acquired from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a dental scanner using 3D software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After selecting the full-arch forms of the maxilla and mandible as the master cast, the master cast was scanned via a high-precision optical scanner for use as master model data. The model was scanned 12 times each using CBCT and a dental scanner. Scanned data were superimposed onto the master cast data for evaluation of accuracy and repeatability. RESULTS: Although significant differences in both accuracy and repeatability were seen between CBCT and dental scanner (P < 0.05), repeatability of the maxillary arch showed little difference, with CBCT and scanner having values of 17 ± 2 µm and 22 ± 5 µm, respectively. Meanwhile, repeatability of the mandibular arch with CBCT and scanner was 15 ± 0 µm and 19 ± 3 µm, respectively. Since good repeatability was shown, this demonstrated that data can be stably acquired. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated the feasibility of using a dental scanner to create a digital model as a substitute for a plaster model for use in orthodontic diagnosis and device fabrication.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) image data acquired from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a dental scanner using 3D software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After selecting the full-arch forms of the maxilla and mandible as the master cast, the master cast was scanned via a high-precision optical scanner for use as master model data. The model was scanned 12 times each using CBCT and a dental scanner. Scanned data were superimposed onto the master cast data for evaluation of accuracy and repeatability. RESULTS: Although significant differences in both accuracy and repeatability were seen between CBCT and dental scanner (P < 0.05), repeatability of the maxillary arch showed little difference, with CBCT and scanner having values of 17 ± 2 µm and 22 ± 5 µm, respectively. Meanwhile, repeatability of the mandibular arch with CBCT and scanner was 15 ± 0 µm and 19 ± 3 µm, respectively. Since good repeatability was shown, this demonstrated that data can be stably acquired. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated the feasibility of using a dental scanner to create a digital model as a substitute for a plaster model for use in orthodontic diagnosis and device fabrication.