Jason Latham1, Mark Ludlow2, Anthony Mennito2, Abigail Kelly3, Zachary Evans4, Walter Renne5. 1. Orthodontic Resident, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 3. Assistant Professor, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Stomatology, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 5. Professor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. Electronic address: renne@musc.edu.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Complete-arch digital scans are becoming popular as digital dentistry is adopted for expanded clinical situations such as complete-arch prostheses, removable prostheses, extensive implant-supported treatment, and orthodontic aligners. Whether the scan pattern technique affects the trueness and precision of complete-arch scans and whether differences in accuracy exist among different scanners remain unclear. Furthermore, each manufacturer recommends a different scan pattern, but evidence of the superiority of the manufacturer's recommended pattern is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine whether the scan pattern affects the trueness, precision, and speed of complete-arch digital scans performed by using 4 different digital scanning systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A custom model used as the reference standard was fabricated with teeth having the same refractive index as dentin and enamel to simulate the natural dentition. The scan of the custom typodont was obtained by using an ATOS III Triple Scan 3D optical scanner. This study evaluated the CEREC Omnicam, Planmeca Emerald, Align iTero Element, and 3Shape TRIOS 3. Experimental scans were obtained from each of the 4 different digital scanning systems by using 4 unique scan patterns by experienced clinicians. Four experimental scans were acquired from each of the scanners by using 4 distinct scan patterns for a total of 16 scans for each scanner. Scan patterns 1 to 4 were based on the operator manuals for each different scanner. The scan time was recorded for each scan. All experimental scans were converted to standard tessellation language (STL) format, and a comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. RESULTS: For trueness, the scanner (P<.001), scan pattern (P=.001), and their interaction (P<.001) were found to be significant. Overall, scan pattern 2 showed the highest average trueness and precision. Likewise, for overall scan pattern precision, the scanner, scan pattern, and their interaction were found to be significant (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Scan pattern affected trueness and precision for some scanners, but not for others. Differences exist in the complete-arch scan speed, trueness, and precision of individual scanners. Scan pattern can play an important role in the success of digital scanning.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Complete-arch digital scans are becoming popular as digital dentistry is adopted for expanded clinical situations such as complete-arch prostheses, removable prostheses, extensive implant-supported treatment, and orthodontic aligners. Whether the scan pattern technique affects the trueness and precision of complete-arch scans and whether differences in accuracy exist among different scanners remain unclear. Furthermore, each manufacturer recommends a different scan pattern, but evidence of the superiority of the manufacturer's recommended pattern is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine whether the scan pattern affects the trueness, precision, and speed of complete-arch digital scans performed by using 4 different digital scanning systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A custom model used as the reference standard was fabricated with teeth having the same refractive index as dentin and enamel to simulate the natural dentition. The scan of the custom typodont was obtained by using an ATOS III Triple Scan 3D optical scanner. This study evaluated the CEREC Omnicam, Planmeca Emerald, Align iTero Element, and 3Shape TRIOS 3. Experimental scans were obtained from each of the 4 different digital scanning systems by using 4 unique scan patterns by experienced clinicians. Four experimental scans were acquired from each of the scanners by using 4 distinct scan patterns for a total of 16 scans for each scanner. Scan patterns 1 to 4 were based on the operator manuals for each different scanner. The scan time was recorded for each scan. All experimental scans were converted to standard tessellation language (STL) format, and a comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. RESULTS: For trueness, the scanner (P<.001), scan pattern (P=.001), and their interaction (P<.001) were found to be significant. Overall, scan pattern 2 showed the highest average trueness and precision. Likewise, for overall scan pattern precision, the scanner, scan pattern, and their interaction were found to be significant (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Scan pattern affected trueness and precision for some scanners, but not for others. Differences exist in the complete-arch scan speed, trueness, and precision of individual scanners. Scan pattern can play an important role in the success of digital scanning.