Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 6/2014

01-07-2014 | Original Article

Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

Authors: Sebastian B. M. Patzelt, Archontia Emmanouilidi, Susanne Stampf, Joerg R. Strub, Wael Att

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 6/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans.

Materials and methods

A representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). A level of statistical significance of p < 0.05 was set.

Results

Mean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Except for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions.

Clinical relevance

Despite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations.
Literature
1.
Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2007) Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 35(12):903–908PubMedCrossRef
2.
Schoenbaum TR (2010) Decoding CAD/CAM and digital impression units. Dent Today 29(2):140, 142, 144–145PubMed
3.
Clancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL (1983) Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil 10(4):325–333PubMedCrossRef
4.
Endo T, Finger WJ (2006) Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Quintessence Int 37(1):47–51PubMed
5.
Jamani KD, Harrington E, Wilson HJ (1989) Rigidity of elastomeric impression materials. J Oral Rehabil 16(3):241–248PubMedCrossRef
6.
Shafa S, Zaree Z, Mosharraf R (2008) The effects of custom tray material on the accuracy of master casts. J Contemp Dent Pract 9(6):49–56PubMed
7.
Shetty P, Rodrigues S (2006) Accuracy of elastomeric impression materials on repeated pours. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 6(2):61–71CrossRef
8.
Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M (2009) Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 22(2):158–160PubMed
9.
Zweig A (2009) Improving impressions: go digital! Dent Today 28(11):100, 102, 104PubMed
10.
Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139(6):761–763PubMedCrossRef
11.
Christensen GJ (2009) Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 140(10):1301–1304PubMedCrossRef
12.
Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21PubMed
13.
Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8(4):283–294PubMed
14.
15.
16.
Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28PubMed
17.
Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2012) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. doi:10.​1007/​s00784-012-0795-0
18.
19.
Babayoff N, Glaser-Inbari I (2000) Imaging a three-dimensional structure by confocal focussing an array of light beams. International Publication WO 00/08415
20.
Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB, Stevens C, Cohen B (2009) 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Insid Dent 5:70–74
21.
22.
Brandestini M, Moermann WH (1989) Method of and apparatus for making a prosthesis, especially a dental prosthesis. US Patent 4663720
23.
Schwotzer A (2007) Measuring device and method that operates according to the basic principles of confocal microscopy. US Patent 2007/0296959
24.
Thiel F, Pfeiffer J, Fornoff P (2008) Apparatus and method for optical 3D measurement. International Publication WO 2008/092791
25.
Schmidt V (2010) 3D dental camera for recording surface structures of a measuring object by means of triangulation. International Publication WO 2010/012838 A1
26.
Seitz G, Tiziani HJ (1996) Resolution limits of active triangulation systems by defocusing. Opt Eng 32(6):1374–1383CrossRef
27.
Kovács T (2004) Active triangulation scanner development focusing on the accuracy of the detection. In: 5th International Symposium of Hungarian Researchers: Sponsored by IEEE Computational Intelligence Chapter, Budapest, Magyarország, 2004.11.11–2004.11.12. pp 183–194
28.
29.
Berner M (2010) Optical system for a confocal microscope. US Patent 2010/0085636
30.
31.
Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. In: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 14(2):239–256
32.
Yang C, Medioni G (1992) Object modeling by registration of multiple range images. Image Vis Comput 10(3):145–155CrossRef
33.
Metadata
Title
Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners
Authors
Sebastian B. M. Patzelt
Archontia Emmanouilidi
Susanne Stampf
Joerg R. Strub
Wael Att
Publication date
01-07-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 6/2014
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y

Other articles of this Issue 6/2014

Clinical Oral Investigations 6/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Bleaching effectiveness, hydrogen peroxide diffusion, and cytotoxicity of a chemically activated bleaching gel

Original Article

Causes and timing of delayed bleeding after oral surgery

Original Article

Polymerization kinetic calculations in dental composites: a method comparison analysis

Original Article

Reconstruction of palatomaxillary defects following cancer ablation with temporalis muscle flap in medically compromised patients: a 15-year single institutional experience

Original Article

The Basic Erosive Wear Examination (BEWE) applied retrospectively to two studies

Erratum

Erratum to: A novel approach to evaluate the effect of medicaments used in endodontic regeneration on root canal surface indentation