Hironari Hayama1, Kenji Fueki2, Juro Wadachi1, Noriyuki Wakabayashi1. 1. Removable Partial Prosthodontics, Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Removable Partial Prosthodontics, Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan. Electronic address: kunfu.rpro@tmd.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: It remains unclear whether digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner are sufficiently accurate for use in fabrication of removable partial dentures. We therefore compared the trueness and precision between conventional and digital impressions in the partially edentulous mandible. METHODS: Mandibular Kennedy Class I and III models with soft silicone simulated-mucosa placed on the residual edentulous ridge were used. The reference models were converted to standard triangulated language (STL) file format using an extraoral scanner. Digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner with a large or small scanning head, and converted to STL files. For conventional impressions, pressure impressions of the reference models were made and working casts fabricated using modified dental stone; these were converted to STL file format using an extraoral scanner. Conversion to STL file format was performed 5 times for each method. Trueness and precision were evaluated by deviation analysis using three-dimensional image processing software. RESULTS: Digital impressions had superior trueness (54-108μm), but inferior precision (100-121μm) compared to conventional impressions (trueness 122-157μm, precision 52-119μm). The larger intraoral scanning head showed better trueness and precision than the smaller head, and on average required fewer scanned images of digital impressions than the smaller head (p<0.05). On the color map, the deviation distribution tended to differ between the conventional and digital impressions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions are partially comparable to conventional impressions in terms of accuracy; the use of a larger scanning head may improve the accuracy for removable partial denture fabrication.
PURPOSE: It remains unclear whether digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner are sufficiently accurate for use in fabrication of removable partial dentures. We therefore compared the trueness and precision between conventional and digital impressions in the partially edentulous mandible. METHODS: Mandibular Kennedy Class I and III models with soft silicone simulated-mucosa placed on the residual edentulous ridge were used. The reference models were converted to standard triangulated language (STL) file format using an extraoral scanner. Digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner with a large or small scanning head, and converted to STL files. For conventional impressions, pressure impressions of the reference models were made and working casts fabricated using modified dental stone; these were converted to STL file format using an extraoral scanner. Conversion to STL file format was performed 5 times for each method. Trueness and precision were evaluated by deviation analysis using three-dimensional image processing software. RESULTS: Digital impressions had superior trueness (54-108μm), but inferior precision (100-121μm) compared to conventional impressions (trueness 122-157μm, precision 52-119μm). The larger intraoral scanning head showed better trueness and precision than the smaller head, and on average required fewer scanned images of digital impressions than the smaller head (p<0.05). On the color map, the deviation distribution tended to differ between the conventional and digital impressions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions are partially comparable to conventional impressions in terms of accuracy; the use of a larger scanning head may improve the accuracy for removable partial denture fabrication.