Evaluation of the reproducibility of various abutments using a blue light model scanner

Evaluating the accuracy of three intraoral scanners using models containing different numbers of crown-prepared abutments

Background/purpose

The scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners’ data collection plays a key role in the success of the final treatment. However, few studies start from scanning technology itself to directly evaluate it. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy of three intraoral scanners, to provide a reference for relevant research and clinical applications.

Materials and methods

Six types of resin models containing different numbers of crown-prepared abutments were three-dimensionally printed, and a model scanner, as well as three intraoral scanners, were used to digitally scan the six models. The obtained data were uploaded to three-dimensional reverse software for registration and comparison, and the accuracy of the models were analyzed.

Results

When scanning the six groups of models, the Omnicam outperformed both the TRIOS and iTero in terms of accuracy in all groups except the second molar group. The TRIOS and iTero scanners also exhibited decreased degrees of accuracy when scanning the long dental arch. The accuracy decreased as the scanning scope increased; however, the Omnicam scanner exhibited a relatively high degree of accuracy when scanning the three-unit fixed bridge and anterior areas. All scanners exhibited the lowest degree of accuracy when scanning the full-arch model. Certain deviations were observed, and the scanning areas at the incisal edges of the anterior teeth and end of the dental arch exhibited relatively large deviations.

Conclusion

With the model scanner data as reference, the scanning accuracy of the three scanners exhibited differences and certain deviations, which were within clinical tolerance.

In vitro precision evaluation of blue light scanning of abutment teeth made with impressions and dental stone casts according to different 3D superimposition methods

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the precision evaluation of blue light scanning of abutment teeth impressions and dental stone casts according to different 3D superimposition methods.

METHODS

Impressions and dental stone casts of the maxillary canine, 1st premolar, and 1st molar were fixed; they were repeatedly scanned 11 times, (6 types, total n = 66). Stereolithography (STL) files were superimposed one by one, and used to obtain 10 root mean square (RMS) values with the 2 superimposition methods (best-fit-alignment, no control). Statistical analysis included the independent t test and one-way ANOVA with Tukey honest significant differences (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

RMS ± Standard Deviation (SD) values for the best-fit-alignment method of the abutment teeth impressions of the maxillary canine, 1st premolar, and 1st molar was 8.07 ± 0.76, 5.03 ± 0.23, and 6.59 ± 0.24, respectively, and those of the no control method were 9.36 ± 0.82, 7.10 ± 1.14, and 8.17 ± 0.36 respectively. RMS ± SD values for the best-fit-alignment method for the dental stone casts were 4.07 ± 0.27, 3.39 ± 0.07, and 3.29 ± 0.07, respectively, and those for the no control method were 6.26 ± 2.50, 4.98 ± 1.16, and 4.55± 0.74, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using different 3D superimposition methods, blue light scanning of abutment teeth impressions and dental stone casts shows high precision. The no control method showed lower precision best-fit-alignment. However, the results may help advance the digital dental CAD/CAM research and the clinical field of Prosthodontics.

A Comparative Study of the Fitness and Trueness of a Three-Unit Fixed Dental Prosthesis Fabricated Using Two Digital Workflows

The purpose of this study was to measure and correlate the fitness and trueness of a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) fabricated using two digital workflows. The 3-unit FDPs were fabricated using two digital workflows (N = 15). The digital workflows were divided into chairside (closed type) and in-lab (open type) groups. The scanning, computer-aided design (CAD), and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) processes were conducted with 3shape E1 scanner, exocad CAD software, and DDS EZIS HM, respectively, in the in-lab group; and with CEREC omnicam intraoral scanner, CEREC CAD software, and CEREC MC XL, respectively, in the chairside group. The fitness of the fabricated 3-unit FDPs was evaluated by scanning the silicone replica of the cement space and analyzing the thickness of the silicone replica in the three-dimensional (3D) inspection software (Geomagic control X). The trueness of the milling unit was analyzed by 3D analysis of the CAD reference model, which is the design file of the 3-unit FDP, and the CAD test model, which is the scanned file of the 3-unit FDP. In the statistical analysis, comparison of the two groups was conducted by Mann–Whitney U test, and the correlation between the fitness and trueness was conducted by Pearson correlation test (α = 0.05). The marginal and internal fit were significantly lower in the in-lab group at all measurement positions (p < 0.001). The trueness of the milling unit was significantly higher in the in-lab group compared to the chairside group (p < 0.001). There was a positive correlation between the trueness and internal fit (correlation coefficient = 0.621) in the in-lab group (p = 0.013). The use of appropriate equipment in an in-lab (open type) digital workflow enables a better fabrication of 3-unit FDPs than a chairside (closed type) digital workflow, and poor trueness on the inner surface of the crown adversely affects the internal fit.