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 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
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions

Authors: Emad A. Albdour, Eman Shaheen, Myrthel Vranckx, Francesco Guido Mangano, Constantinus Politis, Reinhilde Jacobs

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Intraoral scanners are devices for capturing digital impressions in dentistry. Until now, several in vitro studies have assessed the trueness of digital impressions, but in vivo studies are missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to introduce a new method to assess trueness of intraoral scanners and digital impressions in an in vivo clinical set-up.

Methods

A digital impression using an intraoral scanner (Trios® 3 Cart wired, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and a conventional alginate impression (Cavex Impressional®, Cavex, Haarlem, the Netherlands) as clinical reference were made for two patients assigned for full mouth extraction. A total of 30 teeth were collected upon surgery after impressions making. The gypsum model created from conventional impression and extracted teeth were then scanned in a lab scanner (Activity 885®, SmartOptics, Bochum, Germany). Digital model of the intraoral scanner (DM), digital model of the conventional gypsum cast (CM) and those of the extracted natural teeth (NT) were imported to a reverse engineering software (3-matic®, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) in which the three models were registered then DM and CM were compared to their corresponding teeth in NT by distance map calculations.

Results

DM had statistically insignificant better trueness when compared to CM for total dataset (p = 0.15), statistically insignificant better trueness for CM when mandibular arches analyzed alone (p = 0.56), while a significantly better DM trueness (p = 0.013) was found when only maxillary arches were compared.

Conclusions

Our results show that digital impression technique is clinically as good as or better than the current reference standard for study models of orthognathic surgery patients.
Literature
1.
Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(4):282–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Patzelt SBM, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners. An in vitro comparative study J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(6):542–51.CrossRef
3.
Otto T, De Nisco S. Computer-aided direct ceramic restorations: a 10-year prospective clinical study of Cerec CAD/CAM inlays and onlays. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(2):122–8.PubMed
4.
Mörmann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137 Suppl(September):7S-13S.
5.
Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(4):1201–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Fasbinder DJ. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent. 2013;26(3):115–20.PubMed
7.
Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008;204(9):505–11.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rödiger M, Heinitz A, Bürgers R, Rinke S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions—a clinical comparative study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(2):579–87.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(4):310–5.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Weber A, Koch R, Rudolph H. Clinical parameters influencing the accuracy of 1- and 2-stage impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;21:322–7.
15.
Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144(3):471–8.CrossRef
16.
Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision. J Vis Exp. 2014;86:e51374.
17.
DeLong R, Knorr S, Anderson GC, Hodges J, Pintado MR. Accuracy of contacts calculated from 3D images of occlusal surfaces. J Dent. 2007;35(6):528–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Endo T, Finger WJ. Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Quintessence Int. 2006;37(1):47–51.PubMed
19.
Chen SY, Liang WM, Chen FN. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials. J Dent. 2004;32(8):603–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Phillips KM. A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(3):228–34.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(8):2027–34.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Persson ASK, Odén A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater. 2009;25(7):929–36.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Vecsei B, Joós-Kovács G, Borbély J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems – an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(2):177–84.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):1–15.
25.
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(7):1759–64.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Patzelt SBM, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(8):914–20.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687–94.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hack GD, SBM P. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Six Intraoral Scanning Devices. An in-vitro Investigation. 2015;10(4):1–5.
29.
Franceschini G. A comparative analysis of intraoral 3d digital scanners for restorative dentistry. Internet J Med Technol. 2011;5(1):1–18.
30.
Hamalian TA, Nasr E, Chidiac JJ. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(2):153–60.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions
Authors
Emad A. Albdour
Eman Shaheen
Myrthel Vranckx
Francesco Guido Mangano
Constantinus Politis
Reinhilde Jacobs
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0580-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Oral Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Matrix metalloproteinase-8 levels in oral samples as a biomarker for periodontitis in the Chinese population: an observational study

Research article

Developmental defects of the enamel and its impact on the oral health quality of life of children resident in Southwest Nigeria

Research article

An in vitro study evaluating the effect of ferrule design on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular premolars after simulated crown lengthening or forced eruption methods

Research article

Palatal dimensions at different stages of dentition in 5 to 18-year-old Iranian children and adolescent with normal occlusion

Research article

Novel caries loci in children and adults implicated by genome-wide analysis of families

Research article

Association of mastication and factors affecting masticatory function with obesity in adults: a systematic review