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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

The effect of scanning pathways on trueness and precision in full-arch optical impression

Authors: Shota Kuroda, Mamoru Yotsuya, Toru Sato, Ryuichi Hisanaga, Syuntaro Nomoto, Hideshi Sekine

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In this study, we investigated the effects of differences in scanning pathways during optical impression on the trueness and precision of full-arch impressions.

Methods

Reference data were obtained using a laboratory scanner. All optical impressions were measured across the dental arch using TRIOS® 3 in four different pathways. The reference and optical impression data were superimposed using the best-fit method. The criteria for superimposition were based on the starting side of the dental arch (partial arch best-fit method, PB) and based on the full arch (full arch best-fit method, FB). The data were compared between the left and right molars (starting and ending sides). The scan deviations for trueness (n = 5) and precision (n = 10) were obtained for each group by calculating the root mean square (RMS) of the deviation at each measurement point. Visual observations using superimposed color map images revealed variations in trueness.

Results

There were no significant differences in scanning time or amount of scan data between the four scanning pathways. Trueness did not differ significantly among the four pathways with respect to the starting and ending sides, regardless of the superimposition criteria. Precision with PB was significantly different between scanning pathways A and B, and pathways B and C for the starting sides, and between scanning pathways A and B, and pathways A and D for the ending sides. In contrast, there was no significant difference between the starting and ending side in pathways for FB. Regarding PB, color map images showed a large error range in the direction toward the molar radius for the occlusal surface and cervical regions on the ending sides.

Conclusion

Differences in the scanning pathways did not affect trueness, regardless of the superimposition criteria. On the other hand, differences in the scanning pathways affected the precision of the starting and ending sides with PB. Scanning pathways B and D were more precise on the starting and ending sides, respectively.
Literature
1.
Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Invest. 2013;17(4):1201–8.CrossRef
2.
Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an invitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2015;59(4):236–42.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(6):755–61.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Invest. 2015;20(7):1495–504.CrossRef
5.
Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardó A, Camps I. Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(4):e361–6 10.4317.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(3):313–20.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Güth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Invest. 2016;20(2):283–9.CrossRef
8.
Almeida e Sliva J, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araújo É, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):515–23.CrossRef
9.
Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradies G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM fabricated all ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Invest. 2016;20(9):2403–10.CrossRef
10.
Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Invest. 2014;18(6):1687–94.CrossRef
11.
Seelbach S, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Invest. 2013;17(7):1759–64.CrossRef
12.
Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(4):450–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions – an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11–21.PubMed
14.
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
15.
Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: a Clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(3):400–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Van der Meer WJ, Andriessen F, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43312 10.137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(1):93–101.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Jeon JH, Choi BY, Kim CM, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):549–53.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners : An in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(6):1461–71.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Dehurtevent M, Robberecht L, Béhin P. Influence of dentist experience with scan spray systems used in direct CAD/CAM impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(1):17–21.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(3):347–52.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pham M-T, Woodford OJ, Perbet F, Maki A, Gherardi R, Stenger B, Cipolla R. Scale-invariant vote-based 3d recognition and registration from point clouds. Stud Comput Intell. 2013;411:137–62.CrossRef
23.
Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(4):343–9.PubMed
24.
Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual A, Camps I. Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0202916 10.1371.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Patzelt SB, 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.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):755–9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Wesemann C, Muallah J, Mah J, Bumann A. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoralscanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Quintessence Int. 2017;48(1):41–50.PubMed
28.
Güth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Invest. 2017;21(5):1445–55.CrossRef
29.
Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent. 2016;55:68–74 10.1016.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(1):11–21.PubMed
31.
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 10.1371.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Nedelcu R, Olssson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018;69:110–8 10.1016.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Kamimura E, Tanaka S, Takaba M, Tachi K, Baba K. In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179188 10.1371.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725–1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – Part 1: general principles and definitions. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1994.
35.
Treesh JC, Liacouras PC, Taft RM, Brooks DI, Raiciulescu S, Ellert DO, et al. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(3):382–8.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Mandelli F, Gherlone E, Gastaldi G, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the accuracy of extraoral laboratory scanners with a single-tooth abutment model: A 3D analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(4):363–70.CrossRefPubMed
37.
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
38.
Metadata
Title
The effect of scanning pathways on trueness and precision in full-arch optical impression
Authors
Shota Kuroda
Mamoru Yotsuya
Toru Sato
Ryuichi Hisanaga
Syuntaro Nomoto
Hideshi Sekine
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03101-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Oral Health 1/2023 Go to the issue

Research

Effect of bleaching treatments on the adhesion of orthodontic brackets: a systematic review

Research

Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of different combinations of calcium hydroxide against Enterococcus faecalis

Research

Factors associated with nurses’ attitudes for providing oral care in geriatric care facilities: a cross-sectional study

Research

Early tissue and healing responses after maxillary sinus augmentation using horizontal platelet rich fibrin bone blocks

Research

Effect of systemic antiresorptive medication on the histopathological parameters of implant osseointegration in an in vivo rodent study

Research

Potential use of optical coherence tomography in oral potentially malignant disorders: in-vivo case series study