Minoru Sanda1, Keita Miyoshi1, Kazuyoshi Baba2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Showa University, 2-1-1 Kitasenzoku, Ota-ku, Tokyo, 145-8515, Japan. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Showa University, 2-1-1 Kitasenzoku, Ota-ku, Tokyo, 145-8515, Japan. kazuyoshi@dent.showa-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results. MAIN TEXT: Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.
BACKGROUND: With the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results. MAIN TEXT: Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.
Authors: Vanessa A Chia; Roxanna J Esguerra; Khim Hean Teoh; Juin Wei Teo; Keng Mun Wong; Keson B Tan Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Mario Imburgia; Silvia Logozzo; Uli Hauschild; Giovanni Veronesi; Carlo Mangano; Francesco Guido Mangano Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2017-06-02 Impact factor: 2.757