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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 5/2017

01-06-2017 | Original Article

Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization

Authors: Jan-Frederik Güth, Cornelius Runkel, Florian Beuer, Michael Stimmelmayr, Daniel Edelhoff, Christine Keul

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 5/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

Direct and indirect digitalization offer two options for computer-aided design (CAD)/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-generated restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners and compare them to the process of indirect digitalization.

Material and method

A titanium testing model was directly digitized 12 times with each intraoral scanner: (1) CS 3500 (CS), (2) Zfx Intrascan (ZFX), (3) CEREC AC Bluecam (BLU), (4) CEREC AC Omnicam (OC) and (5) True Definition (TD). As control, 12 polyether impressions were taken and the referring plaster casts were digitized indirectly with the D-810 laboratory scanner (CON). The accuracy (trueness/precision) of the datasets was evaluated by an analysing software (Geomagic Qualify 12.1) using a “best fit alignment” of the datasets with a highly accurate reference dataset of the testing model, received from industrial computed tomography.

Results

Direct digitalization using the TD showed the significant highest overall “trueness”, followed by CS. Both performed better than CON. BLU, ZFX and OC showed higher differences from the reference dataset than CON. Regarding the overall “precision”, the CS 3500 intraoral scanner and the True Definition showed the best performance. CON, BLU and OC resulted in significantly higher precision than ZFX did.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the ascertained datasets was dependent on the scanning system. The direct digitalization was not superior to indirect digitalization for all tested systems.

Clinical relevance

Regarding the accuracy, all tested intraoral scanning technologies seem to be able to reproduce a single quadrant within clinical acceptable accuracy. However, differences were detected between the tested systems.
Literature
1.
Rubel BS (2007) Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 51:629–642 viCrossRefPubMed
2.
Christensen GJ (2005) The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136:343–346CrossRefPubMed
3.
Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763CrossRefPubMed
4.
Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMed
5.
Henkel GL (2007) A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent 28:422–424 426-428, 430-421PubMed
6.
Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559CrossRefPubMed
7.
Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109:121–128CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16:11–21PubMed
9.
Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMed
10.
Almeida E, Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. (2014) Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 18:515–523CrossRef
11.
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B (2013) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17:1759–1764CrossRefPubMed
12.
Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 1: general principles and definitions (ISO 5725–1:1994)
13.
Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30:400–407CrossRefPubMed
14.
Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17:1201–1208CrossRefPubMed
15.
Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14:11–21PubMed
16.
Ender A, Mehl A (2015) In-Vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 46:9–17PubMed
17.
Nedelcu RG, Persson AS (2014) Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 112:1461–1471CrossRefPubMed
18.
Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF (2015) Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig
Metadata
Title
Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization
Authors
Jan-Frederik Güth
Cornelius Runkel
Florian Beuer
Michael Stimmelmayr
Daniel Edelhoff
Christine Keul
Publication date
01-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Clinical Oral Investigations 5/2017 Go to the issue

Original Article

Efficacy of various side-to-side toothbrushes and impact of brushing parameters on noncontact biofilm removal in an interdental space model

Original Article

Impact of the intermediary layer on sealant retention: a randomized 24-month clinical trial

Erratum

Erratum to: pulp bleeding color is an indicator of clinical and histohematologic status of primary teeth

Original Article

Oral health and dental anxiety in a German practice-based sample

Original Article

CD151 expression is frequent but unrelated to clinical outcome in head and neck cancer

Original Article

Podoplanin, ezrin, and Rho-A proteins may have joint participation in tumor invasion of lip cancer