Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Accuracy of merging scans of definitive fixed prosthodontic impressions to obtain single, accurate digitized master casts

PURPOSE

Many elastomeric impressions sent to commercial laboratory dental technicians may include marginal defects. To fabricate accurate restorations, digital technology may be used to merge digital files of defective impressions into a single standard tessellation language (STL) file free of errors. This would save clinicians and patients time and may improve clinical care. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital master casts reconstructed from merged STL files of defective impressions with the file of the original defect-free preparations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ivorine teeth on a dentoform were prepared to receive a posterior fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) with complete coverage preparations. An impression was made in a stock tray using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material and an extraoral scanner (E3, 3Shape, Denmark) was used to digitize the impression; this was the reference cast. Wax was used to create defects on the buccal and lingual margins of the preparations. Fifteen PVS impressions were made of the FDP preparations with defects in the mesial and distal margins; another set of 15 PVS impressions was made of FDP preparations with defects in the buccal and palatal margins for a total of 30 impressions. All impressions were digitized using the same extraoral scanner (E3, 3Shape, Denmark). Corresponding STL files were paired and merged, and a master cast was created by eliminating the defects using the scanned data. This master cast was compared to the reference cast using reverse engineering software (Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). The results were expressed as average errors and standard deviations in the master casts relative to the reference cast. To account for the presence of positive and negative values in the data set, in terms of errors, the root mean square (RMS) value was calculated for each sample.

RESULTS

The mean average error in the sample was -0.4 μm. The average upper limit of 95% confidence interval was +36.5 μm, while the average lower limit of 95% confidence interval was -37.3 μm. The mean RMS of the errors found was 18.9 μm.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicated that merging digitized definitive impressions to correct marginal defects resulted in master casts with a high level of accuracy relative to the reference cast.

Enhancing Effective Scanning Techniques for Digital Impression in Neonates with Cleft Lip and/or Palate: A Laboratory Study Investigating the Impact of Different Scanners, Scanning Tip Sizes, and Strategies

Background/Objectives: Digital impressions are increasingly used to manage Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P), potentially offering advantages over traditional methods. This laboratory investigation sought to evaluate the impact of scanning tip sizes, different scanners, and scanning strategies on intraoral scanning in neonates with CL/P. Methods: Ten soft acrylic models were used to simulate the oral anatomy of neonates with CL/P, evaluating parameters such as the ability of different scanning tips to capture alveolar cleft depth, scanning time, number of scan stops, and scan quality. The study utilised various scanning tips, including the Carestream normal tip, Carestream side tip, and Trios 4 scanner tip to assess the alveolar cleft depth measurements. The Trios 4, Carestream, and iTero scanners were evaluated for the time taken, number of scan stops during cleft-unobstructed scanning and cleft-obstructed scanning. The quality of all scanned images was analysed. Results: The findings showed comparable accuracy in capturing alveolar cleft depth with the three-scanning tip (p > 0.05). Scanning time and the number of scan stops did not significantly differ across the three scanners and various scanning strategies employed (p > 0.05). However, scanning with the cleft obstructed required less time and resulted in fewer scan stops compared to cleft -unobstructed scanning. Despite these results, all scanners failed to record the deepest part of the alveolar cleft, highlighting a limitation in current scanning technology for neonates with CL/P. Conclusions: The study recommends enhancing intraoral scanning in this population by adjusting tip size, improving clinician training, optimizing protocols, and conducting further research to improve techniques.

Direct vs. Indirect Digital Implant Impressions: A Time and Cost Analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the cost and time implications for implant-supported prosthesis comparing three digital impression techniques: digitization with an intraoral scanner, digitization of the conventional impression (without dental casts) and digitization of the stone models.

METHODS

To assess the time and cost of digital impression techniques on implants, time records on intraoral scans were consulted and three models were created with one, two and six implants to assess extraoral procedures time. Costs were evaluated based on material consumption, time expenditure and operator-related expenses. Time was recorded in three stages: (1) impression-taking, (2) model fabrication and (3) overall workflow completion. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA to compare cost and time differences across workflows.

RESULTS

Intraoral scanning presented a reduction in chair-side time between 4 and 20% when compared to extraoral techniques. For the three clinical situations evaluated, the intraoral scanning always presented the lowest cost. The extraoral digitization of impressions showed a reduction between 51.9% and 53.6% in laboratory time and between 3.5% and 7.6% in total cost compared to stone models digitization.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study indicate that intraoral scanning is a more cost-effective and time-efficient alternative to traditional impression methods, providing advantages in terms of reduced material use and shorter procedural durations.

An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Models-An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Intraoral scanning technology has opened new perspectives in dental practice, and combined with CAD/CAM technology, contributes significantly to fabricating high-quality prosthetic restorations. Our in vitro study aims to assess the accuracy of digital models obtained from one laboratory and two less commonly used intraoral scanners by conducting 3D measurements on the digital models obtained.

METHODS

An articulated simulator cast was used. Forty-eight scans were performed before and after tooth preparation with each scanner. The Zeiss Inspect software (Version: 2023.3.0.969) was used for measurements in sagittal and transversal planes. The obtained values were compared to reference values resulting from manual measurements.

RESULTS

Digital impressions provided discrepancies compared to the reference model. The lowest differences at the A2-L2 (the diagonal dimension of the models from the distal fossa of the second right maxillary molar and the maximum oral convexity of the artificial gingiva at the first left premolar) and the A1-B1 (transversal dimension of the model in the posterior area, from the right second molar's occlusal central fossa to the left second molar central fossa) distances were obtained for the upper models, and at the a1-b1 distance for all the lower models, except the non-prepared models scanned with the intraoral scanners (the discrepancies were not statistically significant). The discrepancies increased with the distance from the starting point of the scan.

CONCLUSION

The number and position of prepared teeth can influence the accuracy of the scans. Distortions can appear in the case of multiple preparations. The scanning protocol and calibration must be optimized for the highest accuracy. Furthermore, in vivo studies are necessary to evaluate the clinical applicability of these findings.

Comparative Analysis of Four Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

(1) Background: Intraoral scanners undergo rapid advancements in hardware and software, prompting frequent updates by manufacturers. (2) Aim: This study aimed to quantitatively assess the precision of full dental arch digital impressions obtained from four different intraoral scanners: Trios 5-3SHAPE, Copenhagen, Denmark, CEREC Primescan- Dentsply Sirona, New York, NY, USA, Planmeca Emerald S-Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland, and Medit i700-Medit Corp, Seoul, Republic of Korea. (3) Methods: A maxillary virtual dental model (digital master model) was created in accordance with ISO standard 20896-1. Subsequently, a 3D-printed model was obtained from the master model's STL file and scanned 15 times consecutively with each scanner. STL files were aligned with the master model's STL using Medit Link-Medit Design software v.3.1.0. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring deviations in micrometers between each scanner's scans and the master model. (4) Results: The study revealed variations in accuracy ranging from 23 to 32 µm across scans of the same dental arch, irrespective of the scanner used and scanning strategy employed. The anterior regions exhibited higher precision (Mean Absolute Deviation of 112 µm) compared to the posterior regions (Mean Absolute Deviation of 127 µm). Trios 5 demonstrated the smallest deviation (average 112 µm), indicating superior accuracy among the scanners tested. Emerald S and Medit i700 exhibited balanced performance (average 117 µm and 114 µm, respectively), while Primescan consistently displayed high deviation (average 127 µm). (5) Conclusions: Based on clinically accepted thresholds for accuracy in intraoral scanning, which are typically 200 µm for full arch scans, Trios 5 surpasses these benchmarks with its average deviation falling within the 200 µm range. Emerald S and Medit i700 also meet these standards, while Primescan, although showing high overall deviation, approaches the upper limit of clinical acceptability. Considering the limitations of an in vitro investigation, the findings demonstrate that each intraoral scanner under evaluation is capable of reliably and consistently capturing a full arch scan for dentate patients.

Three-dimensional assessment of virtual clear aligner attachment removal: A prospective clinical study

INTRODUCTION

In digital dentistry, virtual attachment removal (VAR) optimizes clear aligner therapy by enhancing efficiency for refinements and enabling prefabricated retainer production through the removal of attachments from a digital scan before the clinical removal of clear aligner attachments. This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VAR in the maxillary arch.

METHODS

A total of 110 teeth were analyzed from a sample of 54 maxillary scans from 25 subjects. Models with attachments were virtually debonded using Meshmixer (Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and superimposed over the control group in MeshLab. Vector Analysis Module (Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, NJ) was used to calculate and analyze 3-dimensional Euclidean distances on the buccal surfaces between the superimposed models. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 23.0, IBM, Armonk, NY). The Shapiro-Wilkes (α = 0.05) test determined a nonnormal distribution of results. The Kruskal-Wallis (α = 0.05) was used to determine differences between different tooth types and the number of attachments.

RESULTS

The VAR protocol showed no statistical differences in the root mean square between different tooth segments with an overall tendency for inadequate attachment removal. No difference between the groups was found regarding the number of attachments when used as a main factor.

CONCLUSIONS

The VAR technique is precise enough for the fabrication of retainers from printed dental models in a clinical setting and is not affected by the number of attachments on the tooth.

In Vitro Analysis of the Accuracy of the Use of Waste Zirconia Dust Compared With Optical Scanning Spray on Implant Abutment Models in Extraoral Scanning Protocol

Introduction The evolution of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) systems has heightened the significance of digital models in dentistry, particularly for fabricating prostheses like inlays, crowns, and bridges. While digital dentistry offers enhanced speed and precision, the initial investment in intraoral scanners may pose a barrier for some clinicians. Extraoral or lab scanners, however, offer a viable alternative, reducing laboratory time and providing accurate prostheses fit, though challenges such as reflective surfaces and availability of scanning sprays persist, impacting scanning quality and operator technique. Optical scanning using laboratory scanners is a routine practice in today's age of digital dentistry. Often these require powder opacification to record fine details. There are numbered studies on the accuracy of scanning sprays. Materials and methods Ten casts, poured with type 4 dental stone (Elite Rock, Zhermack, Italy) with single implants, were used for the purpose of this study. Each cast was scanned by two different operators, using both mediums. It was scanned using an extraoral scanner (E4, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Operator A used easy scan (Alphadent, Korea), followed by zirconia dust (Upcera, Guangdong, China), whereas operator B used zirconia dust first. Digital models within each group were superimposed individually to measure precision. Results Easy scan operator 1 and zirconia dust operator 1 differ by 0.16000 (p = 0.0802). In scenario 2, easy scan operator 2 and zirconia dust operator 2 differ by 0.21900 (p = 0.0212) . Operator type significantly affects performance, emphasizing the need to account for operator variability in relevant contexts. The trueness values obtained for zirconia dust and easy scan among both operators were statistically insignificant.  Conclusion Zirconia dust can be reliably used for extraoral scanning of abutments in place of optical scanning sprays.

Effect of substrate adjacent to the scan region on the trueness of four intraoral scanners: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of four commercially available intraoral scanners (IOSs) on scanning different substrates that existed in the adjacent proximal contact area.

METHODS

Four IOSs (TRIOS 4, TRIOS 3, Primescan, Omnicam) were used for scanning the intact enamel surface of a molar tooth, and six restorative materials (zirconia, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, composite resin, hybrid ceramic, feldspathic ceramic, metal) that were located at the adjacent proximal contact area of the same tooth. Reference scans were obtained using an extraoral scanner (inEos X5). A 3-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Control X) was used to compare the reference and tested scans. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni correction was performed for statistical analyses (α=0.05).

RESULTS

TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4 showed higher trueness than Primescan, and Primescan showed higher trueness than Omnicam (p<0.001), while there were no differences between TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4. Metal showed significantly higher Root Mean Square values (0.273 ± 0.24 mm) than other substrates. No difference was found between the scanners' zirconia, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, composite, and feldspathic ceramic scans (p > 0.05). For the metal, TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4 showed higher trueness than Primescan and Omnicam, while Omnicam showed lower trueness among all scanners. For the hybrid ceramic, TRIOS 3 showed higher trueness than Omnicam (p<0.001). For the enamel, TRIOS 3 showed higher trueness than Primescan and Omnicam (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The trueness of IOSs can be affected by the substrates that exist in the proximal contact area. Amongst all, the metal substrate affected most the trueness of the IOSs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The clinician should decide on the impression system, taking into account that the IOS and the surfaces to be scanned affect the trueness of the digital data. The deviation of the digital impression would be high in the presence of a metal restoration on the adjacent proximal surface.

Higher Computed Tomography (CT) Scan Resolution Improves Accuracy of Patient-specific Mandibular Models When Compared to Cadaveric Gold Standard

BACKGROUND

3D-printed patient-specific anatomical models are becoming an increasingly popular tool for planning reconstructive surgeries to treat oral cancer. Currently there is a lack of information regarding model accuracy, and how the resolution of the computed tomography (CT) scan affects the accuracy of the final model.

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this study was to determine the CT z-axis resolution necessary in creating a patient specific mandibular model with clinically acceptable accuracy for global bony reconstruction. This study also sought to evaluate the effect of the digital sculpting and 3D printing process on model accuracy.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study using cadaveric heads obtained from the Ohio State University Body Donation Program.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

The first independent variable is CT scan slice thickness of either 0.675 , 1.25, 3.00, or 5.00 mm. The second independent variable is the three produced models for analysis (unsculpted, digitally sculpted, 3D printed).

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE

The degree of accuracy of a model as defined by the root mean square (RMS) value, a measure of a model's discrepancy from its respective cadaveric anatomy.

ANALYSES

All models were digitally compared to their cadaveric bony anatomy using a metrology surface scan of the dissected mandible. The RMS value of each comparison evaluates the level of discrepancy. One-way ANOVA tests (P < .05) were used to determine statistically significant differences between CT scan resolutions. Two-way ANOVA tests (P < .05) were used to determine statistically significant differences between groups.

RESULTS

CT scans acquired for 8 formalin-fixed cadaver heads were processed and analyzed. The RMS for digitally sculpted models decreased as slice thickness decreased, confirming that higher resolution CT scans resulted in statistically more accurate model production when compared to the cadaveric gold standard. Furthermore, digitally sculpted models were significantly more accurate than unsculpted models (P < .05) at each slice thickness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that CT scans with slice thicknesses of 3.00 mm or smaller created statistically significantly more accurate models than models created from slice thicknesses of 5.00 mm. The digital sculpting process statistically significantly increased the accuracy of models and no loss of accuracy through the 3D printing process was observed.

In Vitro Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners in a Four-Implant Complete-Arch Model

(1) Background: New intraoral (IOS) and laboratory scanners appear in the market and their trueness and precision have not been compared. (2) Methods: Seven IOS and two laboratory scanners were used to scan a mandibular edentulous model with four parallel internal hexagon implant analogues and PEEK scan bodies. Digital models in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) were created. The master model with the scan bodies was scanned (×10) with a computerized numerical control 3D Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). The short (distances of adjacent scan posts) and long distances (distances of the scan posts with non-adjacent sites in the arch) among the centroids of the four analogues were calculated using CMM special software. Trueness (comparisons with the master model) and precision (intragroup comparisons) were statistically compared with ANOVA, chi-square and Tukey tests. (3) Results: Laboratory scanners had the best trueness and precision compared to all IOSs for long distances. Only iTero (Align Technologies Inc., Milpitas, CA, USA) had comparable trueness with one laboratory scanner in short and long distances. For short distances, CS3600 (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA), Omnicam, Primescan (Sirona Dental Sys-tems GmbH, Bens-heim, Germany) and TRIOS 4 (3Shape A/S, Copen-hagen, Denmark) had similar trueness to one laboratory scanner. From those, only Omnicam and Primescan had similar precision as the same laboratory scanner. Most IOSs seem to work better for smaller distances and are less precise in cross-arch distances. (4) Conclusions: The laboratory scanners showed significantly higher trueness and precision than all IOSs tested for the long-distance group; for the short distance, some IOSs were not different in trueness and precision than the laboratory scanners.

In-vitro evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated using digital scanning technologies

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations that were designed by using the data obtained with the aid of intraoral and laboratory scanners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the fabrication of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations using impressions taken from the maxillary master cast, plaster cast was created and scanned in laboratory scanners (InEos X5 and D900L). The main cast was also scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam [OMNI], Primescan [PS], Trios 3 [T3], Trios 4 [T4]) (n = 12 per group). Zirconia fixed partial dentures were virtually designed, produced from presintered block, and subsequently sintered. Marginal and internal discrepancy values (in µm) were measured by using silicone replica method under stereomicroscope. Data were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests (P<.05).

RESULTS

In terms of marginal adaptation, the measurements on the canine tooth indicated better performance with intraoral scanners than those in laboratory scanners, but there was no difference among intraoral scanners (P<.05). In the premolar tooth, PS had the lowest marginal (86.9 ± 19.2 µm) and axial (92.4 ± 14.8 µm), and T4 had the lowest axio-occlusal (89.4 ± 15.6 µm) and occlusal (89.1 ± 13.9 µm) discrepancy value. In both canine and premolar teeth, the D900L was found to be the most marginally and internally inconsistent scanner.

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of the study, marginal and internal discrepancy values were generally lower in intraoral scanners than in laboratory scanners. Marginal discrepancy values of scanners were clinically acceptable (< 120 µm), except D900L.

A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners

(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the full arch scan accuracy (precision and trueness) of nine digital intra-oral scanners and four lab scanners. Previous studies have compared the accuracy of some intra-oral scanners, but as this is a field of quickly developing technologies, a more up-to-date study was needed to assess the capabilities of currently available models. (2) Methods: The present in vitro study compared nine different intra-oral scanners (Omnicam 4.6; Omnicam 5.1; Primescan; CS 3600; Trios 3; Trios 4; Runyes; i500; and DL206) as well as four lab light scanners (Einscan SE; 300e; E2; and Ineos X5) to investigate the accuracy of each scanner by examining the overall trueness and precision. Ten aligned and cut scans from each of the intra-oral and lab scanners in the in vitro study were brought into CloudCompare. A comparison was made with the master STL using the CloudCompare 3D analysis best-fit algorithm. The results were recorded along with individual standard deviation and a colorimetric map of the deviation across the surface of the STL mesh; a comparison was made to the master STL, quantified at specific points. (3) Results: In the present study, the Primescan had the best overall trueness (17.3 ± 4.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the Trios 4 (20.8 ± 6.2), i500 (25.2 ± 7.3), CS3600 (26.9 ± 15.9), Trios 3 (27.7 ± 6.8), Runyes (47.2 ± 5.4), Omnicam 5.1 (55.1 ± 9.5), Omnicam 4.6 (57.5 ± 3.2), and Launca DL206 (58.5 ± 22.0). Regarding the lab light scanners, the Ineos X5 had the best overall trueness with (0.0 ± 1.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the 3Shape E2 (3.6 ± 2.2), Up3D 300E (12.8 ± 2.7), and Einscan SE (14.9 ± 9.5). (4) Conclusions: This study confirms that all current generations of intra-oral digital scanners can capture a reliable, reproducible full arch scan in dentate patients. Out of the intra-oral scanners tested, no scanner produced results significantly similar in trueness to the Ineos X5. However, the Primescan was the only one to be statistically of a similar level of trueness to the 3Shape E2 lab scanner. All scanners in the study had mean trueness of under 60-micron deviation. While this study can compare the scanning accuracy of this sample in a dentate arch, the scanning of a fully edentulous arch is more challenging. The accuracy of these scanners in edentulous cases should be examined in further studies.

Bias Evaluation of the Accuracy of Two Extraoral Scanners and an Intraoral Scanner Based on ADA Standards

The spread and application of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology have contributed to the rapid development of digitalization in dentistry. The accuracy of scan results is closely related to the devising subsequent treatment plans and outcomes. Professional standards for evaluating scanners are specified in the American National Standard/American Dental Association Standard 132 (ANSI/ADA No. 132). The aims of this study were to use the three samples mentioned in ANSI/ADA No. 132 and evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of two extraoral scanners and an intraoral scanner based on the inspection standards recommended by ANSI/ADA No. 132. In this study, two trained operators used two extraoral scanners (E4, 3Shape, Denmark & SHINING DS100+, Shining, China) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS SERIES3, 3Shape, Denmark) to perform 30 scans of each of the three samples at a temperature of 25 ± 2°C and export standard tessellation language files and used reverse engineering software to perform measurements and iterative nearest point matching experiments. The measured values obtained were compared with the reference values measured by a coordinate measuring machine (NC8107, Leader Metrology, USA). We performed a normal distribution test (Shapiro-Wilk test), the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and an independent-samples t-test to analyze the reproducibility of each scan for different models. The experimental results indicate that the trueness and precision of the two extraoral scanners and the intraoral scanner had a slight mean deviation. The trueness and precision of the three scanners on the curved surface and groove areas are poor. The accuracy and reproducibility of E4 outperformed SHINING and TRIOS. The iterative closest point matching experiment also showed good matching results. The two extraoral scanners and the intraoral scanner in this study can meet the basic clinical requirements in terms of accuracy, and we hope that digital technology will be more widely used in dentistry in the future.

A Fast Method of Visually Lossless Compression of Dental Images

A noniterative approach to the problem of visually lossless compression of dental images is proposed for an image coder based on the discrete cosine transform (DCT) and partition scheme optimization. This approach considers the following peculiarities of the problem. It is necessary to carry out lossy compression of dental images to achieve large compression ratios (CRs). Since dental images are viewed and analyzed by specialists, it is important to preserve useful diagnostic information preventing appearance of any visible artifacts due to lossy compression. At last, dental images may contain noise having complex statistical and spectral properties. In this paper, we have analyzed and utilized dependences of three quality metrics (Peak signal-to-noise ratio, PSNR; eak Signal-to-Noise Ratio using Human Visual System and Masking (PSNR-HVS-M); and feature similarity, FSIM) on the quantization step (QS), which controls a compression ratio for the so-called advanced DCT coder (ADCTC). The threshold values of distortion visibility for these metrics have been considered. Finally, the recent results on detectable changes in noise intensity have been incorporated in the QS setting. A visual comparison of original and compressed images allows to conclude that the introduced distortions are practically undetectable for the proposed approach; meanwhile, the provided CR lies within the interval.

Marginal and Internal Fit of Ceramic Restorations Fabricated Using Digital Scanning and Conventional Impressions: A Clinical Study

This clinical study was designed with the aim of fabricating four ceramic crowns using the conventional method and digital methods with three different intraoral scanners and evaluate the marginal and internal fit as well as clinician satisfaction. We enrolled 20 subjects who required ceramic crowns in the upper or lower molar or the premolar. Impressions were obtained using digital scans, with conventional impressions (polyvinyl siloxane and desktop scanner) and three different intraoral scanners (EZIS PO, i500, and CS3600). Four lithium disilicate glass-ceramic crowns were fabricated for each patient. In the oral cavity, the proximal and occlusal adjustments were performed, and the marginal fit and internal fit were evaluated using the silicone replica technique. The clinician satisfaction score of the four crowns was evaluated as per the evaluations of the proximal and occlusal contacts made during the adjustment process and the marginal and internal fit. For statistical analysis, the differences among the groups were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD test as a post-test; Pearson correlation analysis was used for analyzing the correlations (α = 0.05). There was a significant difference in the marginal and internal fit of the ceramic crowns fabricated using three intraoral scanner types and one desktop scanner type (p < 0.001); there was a significant difference in the clinician satisfaction scores (p = 0.04). The clinician satisfaction score and marginal fit were significantly correlated (absolute marginal discrepancy and marginal gap) (p < 0.05). An impression technique should be considered for fabricating a ceramic crown with excellent goodness-of-fit. Further, higher clinician satisfaction could be obtained by reproducing the excellent goodness-of-fit using the intraoral scanning method as compared to the conventional method.

Effect of Tooth Types on the Accuracy of Dental 3D Scanners: An In Vitro Study

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of dental three-dimensional (3D) scanners according to the types of teeth. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained by scanning the reference typodont model using a high-precision industrial scanner (Solutionix C500, MEDIT). In addition, a CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using seven types of dental 3D scanners (desktop scanners (E1 and DOF Freedom HD) and intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500)). The 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X, 3DSystems) was used to segment the CRM according to the types of teeth and to superimpose the CTM based on the segmented teeth. The 3D accuracy of the scanner was then analyzed according to the types of teeth. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences according to the types of teeth in statistical analysis, and the Tukey HSD test was used for post hoc testing (α = 0.05). Both desktop and intraoral scanners showed significant differences in accuracy according to the types of teeth (P < 0.001), and the accuracy of intraoral scanners tended to get worse from anterior to posterior. Therefore, when scanning a complete arch using an intraoral scanner, the clinician should consider the tendency for the accuracy to decrease from anterior to posterior.