Ethan Dutton1, Mark Ludlow2, Anthony Mennito2, Abigail Kelly3, Zachary Evans3, Alexander Culp4, Raymond Kessler3, Walter Renne2. 1. College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 2. Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 3. Department of Stomatology, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 4. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study compares the newest generation of intraoral scanners to their older counterparts, and tests whether material substrates affect the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A custom model, used as the reference standard, was fabricated with teeth composed of different dental materials. The reference standard scan was obtained using a three-dimensional (3D) optical scanner, the ATOS III. Experimental scans were obtained using eight different IOS, operated by experienced clinicians, using the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy. A comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. RESULTS: For all scanners tested, except Trios3, the substrate does influence the trueness and precision of the scan. Furthermore, differences exist when comparing the same substrate across different scanners with some of the latest generation scanners clearly leaping ahead of the older generation regarding both trueness and precision. CONCLUSIONS: Substrate type affects the trueness and precision of a scan. Active Triangulation scanners are more sensitive to substrate differences than their parallel confocal counterparts. Some scanners scan certain substrates better, but in general the new generation of scanners outperforms the old, across all substrates. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The substrates being scanned play an import role in the trueness and precision of the 3D model. The new generation of scanners is remarkably accurate across all substrates and for complete-arch scanning.
OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study compares the newest generation of intraoral scanners to their older counterparts, and tests whether material substrates affect the trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A custom model, used as the reference standard, was fabricated with teeth composed of different dental materials. The reference standard scan was obtained using a three-dimensional (3D) optical scanner, the ATOS III. Experimental scans were obtained using eight different IOS, operated by experienced clinicians, using the manufacturer's recommended scanning strategy. A comprehensive metrology program, Geomagic Control X, was used to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. RESULTS: For all scanners tested, except Trios3, the substrate does influence the trueness and precision of the scan. Furthermore, differences exist when comparing the same substrate across different scanners with some of the latest generation scanners clearly leaping ahead of the older generation regarding both trueness and precision. CONCLUSIONS: Substrate type affects the trueness and precision of a scan. Active Triangulation scanners are more sensitive to substrate differences than their parallel confocal counterparts. Some scanners scan certain substrates better, but in general the new generation of scanners outperforms the old, across all substrates. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The substrates being scanned play an import role in the trueness and precision of the 3D model. The new generation of scanners is remarkably accurate across all substrates and for complete-arch scanning.