Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners

被引:30
|
作者
Chen, Yuming [1 ]
Zhai, Zhihao [1 ]
Watanabe, Shota [1 ]
Nakano, Tamaki [1 ]
Ishigaki, Shoichi [1 ]
机构
[1] Osaka Univ, Grad Sch Dent, Dept Fixed Prosthodont, 1-8 Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 5650871, Japan
来源
JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY | 2022年 / 124卷
关键词
Intraoral scanners; Desktop scanners; Trueness; Precision; Digital dentistry; AMBIENT LIGHT; IMPRESSIONS; TIME;
D O I
10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104220
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: This study aimed to measure and compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanners and desktop scanners when scanning different spans. Methods: Three plaster models representing different spans (full arch, half arch, and three teeth) were obtained from conventional silicone impressions of a maxillary typodont and used as the scanning objects. An industrial scanner (ATOS III Triple Scan) was used to scan the three plaster models to obtain reference digital models. The plaster models were then scanned using two intraoral scanners (Trios 3 and Primescan) and two desktop scanners (LS3 and D2000) to obtain test digital models. The reference and test models were imported into professional reverse engineering software for processing and analysis. The root mean square value indicated differences between the reference and test models. Two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were used for statistical analysis. Results: Two-way ANOVA tests revealed significant differences in trueness and precision for different scan spans (p < 0.001) and different scanners (p < 0.001), which indicates that the scanner types and scan spans affect the accuracy of the scanner. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of the D2000 at three different scan spans (trueness: 23.82 +/- 0.22 mu m, 21.53 +/- 0.18 mu m, and 21.02 +/- 0.27 mu m respectively; precision: 7.86 +/- 0.83 mu m, 7.87 +/- 1.11 mu m, and 7.82 +/- 0.84 mu m respectively). For the LS3 and the two intraoral scanners, the accuracy of the full arch scan (LS 3, trueness: 33.35 +/- 0.47 mu m, precision:15.36 +/- 3.10 mu m; Trios 3, trueness: 46.92 +/- 9.23 mu m, precision:20.79 +/- 3.08 mu m; Primescan, trueness: 28.73 +/- 0.77 mu m, precision:15.74 +/- 2.45 mu m) was significantly lower than that of the half arch (LS 3, trueness: 27.27 +/- 0.43 mu m, precision:5.62 +/- 0.88 mu m; trios 3, Trueness: 22.29 +/- 1.50 mu m, precision:14.12 +/- 2.25 mu m; Primescan, trueness: 18.91 +/- 0.70 mu m, precision:7.94 +/- 1.09 mu m) and three teeth scans (LS 3, trueness: 24.68 +/- 0.36 mu m, precision:5.29 +/- 0.62 mu m; Trios 3, trueness: 16.92 +/- 0.78 mu m, precision:11.95 +/- 2.22 mu m; Primescan, trueness: 15.79 +/- 0.65 mu m, precision:7.68 +/- 0.62 mu m). Conclusions: The scan span affected the accuracy of the intraoral scanners, but not necessarily the accuracy of the desktop scanners.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Accuracy of intraoral scanners in different complete arch scan patterns
    Pattamavilai, Sakaorat
    Ongthiemsak, Chakree
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 131 (01): : 155 - 162
  • [2] In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy
    Borbola, Daniel
    Berkei, Gabor
    Simon, Botond
    Romanszky, Laszlo
    Sersli, Gyorgy
    DeFee, Michael
    Renne, Walter
    Mangano, Francesco
    Vag, Janos
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 129
  • [3] Accuracy of commercial intraoral scanners
    Sacher, Mattia
    Schulz, Georg
    Deyhle, Hans
    Jaeger, Kurt
    Mueller, Bert
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING, 2021, 8 (03)
  • [4] Effect of Scan Pattern on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions with Two Intraoral Scanners
    Li, Zhipeng
    Huang, Ruoxuan
    Wu, Xiayi
    Chen, Zetao
    Huang, Baoxin
    Chen, Zhuofan
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2022, 37 (04) : 731 - 739
  • [5] Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners
    Khoshkhahesh, Maryam
    Enteghad, Shabnam
    Aghasadeghi, Kiana
    Farzin, Mitra
    Taghva, Masumeh
    Mosadad, Seyed Ali
    [J]. CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DENTAL RESEARCH, 2024, 10 (03):
  • [6] Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible
    Liu, Chih-Te
    Chen, Jen-Hao
    Du, Je-Kang
    Hung, Chun-Cheng
    Lan, Ting-Hsun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2024, 19 (01) : 466 - 472
  • [7] Effect of different arch widths on the accuracy of three intraoral scanners
    Kaewbuasa, Narin
    Ongthiemsak, Chakree
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, 2021, 13 (04): : 205 - 215
  • [8] A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator
    Park, Hye-Nan
    Lim, Young-Jun
    Yi, Won-Jin
    Han, Jung-Suk
    Lee, Seung-Pyo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 10 (01): : 58 - 64
  • [9] Effect of finish line locations of tooth preparation on the accuracy of intraoral scanners
    Son, Keunbada
    Lee, Kyu-Bok
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERIZED DENTISTRY, 2021, 24 (01) : 29 - 40
  • [10] Comparison of Accuracy of Current Ten Intraoral Scanners
    Amornvit, Pokpong
    Rokaya, Dinesh
    Sanohkan, Sasiwimol
    [J]. BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2021, 2021