Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;57(2):102-109. Korean.
    Published online Apr 25, 2019.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.2.102
    © 2019 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

    Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanner by three-dimensional analysis in single and 3-unit bridge abutment model: In vitro study

    Mei-Yang Huang,1,3 Keunbada Son,2,3 Wan-Sun Lee,3 and Kyu-Bok Lee1,3
      • 1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
      • 2Department of Dental Science, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
      • 3Advanced Dental Device Development Institute (A3DI), Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Kyu-Bok Lee. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, A3DI, Kyungpook National University, 2177 Dalgubuldaero, Jung-gu, Daegu 41940, Republic of Korea. +82 (0)53 600 7674: Email: kblee@knu.ac.kr
    Received December 19, 2018; Revised January 14, 2019; Accepted January 16, 2019.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three types of intraoral scanners and the accuracy of the single abutment and bridge abutment model.

    Materials and methods

    In this study, a single abutment, and a bridge abutment with missing first molar was fabricated and set as the reference model. The reference model was scanned with an industrial three-dimensional scanner and set as reference scan data. The reference model was scanned five times using the three intraoral scanners (CS3600, CS3500, and EZIS PO). This was set as the evaluation scan data. In the three-dimensional analysis (Geomagic control X), the divided abutment region was selected and analyzed to verify the scan accuracy of the abutment. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (α = .05). The accuracy of intraoral scanners was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and post-test was performed using the Pairwise test. The accuracy difference between the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test.

    Results

    The accuracy according to the intraoral scanner was significantly different (P < .05). The trueness of the single abutment model and the bridge abutment model showed a statistically significant difference and showed better trueness in the single abutment (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the precision (P = .616).

    Conclusion

    As a result of comparing the accuracy of single and bridge abutments, the error of abutment scan increased with increasing scan area, and the accuracy of bridge abutment model was clinically acceptable in three types of intraoral scanners.

    Keywords
    Intraoral scanner; Three-dimensional data; Accuracy; Three-dimensional analysis

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Experimental design.

    Fig. 2
    Comparison of trueness according to intraoral scanner. (A) Single abutment, (B) Bridge abutment. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < .05). Circle points indicate outliers.

    Fig. 3
    Comparison of precision according to intraoral scanner. (A) Single abutment, (B) Bridge abutment. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < .05). Circle points indicate outliers.

    Fig. 4
    Comparison of accuracy according to abutment type. (A) Trueness, (B) Precision. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < .05).

    Fig. 5
    Comparison of color difference map according to intraoral scanner. (A) EZIS PO (single), (B) CS3500 (single), (C) CS3600 (single), (D) EZIS PO (bridge), (E) CS3500 (bridge), (F) CS3600 (bridge).

    Notes

    This work was supported by Institute for Information & Communications Technology Promotion (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (B0101-19-1081, Development of ICT based software platform and service technologies for medical 3D printing applications) and Industrial Strategic Technology Development Program (10062635, New hybrid milling machine with a resolution of less than 10 µm development, using open CAD/CAM S/W integrated platforms for one day prosthetic treatment of 3D smart medical care system) funded By the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE, Korea).

    References

      1. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:555–560.
      1. 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 intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Quintessence Int 2017;48:41–50.
      1. Kang BG, Kim HJ, Chung CH. Accuracy of the CT guided implant template by using an intraoral scanner according to the edentulous distance. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2017;55:1–8.
      1. Sedda M, Casarotto A, Raustia A, Borracchini A. Effect of storage time on the accuracy of casts made from different irreversible hydrocolloids. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:59–66.
      1. Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 2010;20:243–249.
      1. Mah J, Hatcher D. Current status and future needs in craniofacial imaging. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:10–16.
      1. White AJ, Fallis DW, Vandewalle KS. Analysis of intraarch and interarch measurements from digital models with 2 impression materials and a modeling process based on cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:456.e1–456.e9.
      1. Kwon HJ, Kim KK, Yi WJ. Comparison of digital models generated from three-dimensional optical scanner and cone beam computed tomography. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2016;32:60–69.
      1. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touchprobe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:194–200.
      1. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3–12.
      1. Park JH, Seol JH, Lee JJ, Lee SP, Lim YJ. Comparative study on quality of scanned images from varying materials and surface conditions of standardized model for dental scanner evaluation. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2018;34:104–115.
      1. Felton DA, Kanoy BE, Bayne SC, Wirthman GP. Effect of in vivo crown margin discrepancies on periodontal health. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:357–364.
      1. ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: General principles and definitions. Geneva; Switzerland: International Standards Organization (ISO); 1994
        Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en.
      1. Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:253–259.
      1. Bohner LOL, De Luca Canto G, Marció BS, Laganá DC, Sesma N, Tortamano Neto P. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:617–623.
      1. 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;61:177–184.
      1. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687–1694.
      1. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9–17.
      1. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11–21.
      1. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121–128.
      1. 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;115:755–759.
      1. 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471–478.
      1. Kim KR, Seo K, Kim S. Comparison of the accuracy of digital impressions and traditional impressions: Systematic review. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2018;56:258–268.
      1. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313–320.
      1. Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673–682.
      1. Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:429–434.
      1. Choi JH, Lim YJ, Lee WJ, Han JS, Lee SP. Review of recent developments for intra-oral scanners. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2015;31:112–125.
      1. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:221–230.
      1. Son K, Lee WS, Lee KB. Prediction of the learning curves of 2 dental CAD software programs. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:95–100.
      1. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:895–903.
      1. 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;17:92
      1. Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:450–459.
      1. 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;112:1461–1471.
      1. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015;59:236–242.
      1. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:225–232.
    MeSH Terms
    In Vitro Techniques*
    Molar
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 5

    PERMALINK