A Comparison of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners Using an Intraoral Environment Simulator

Overview

Journal J Adv Prosthodont

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2018 Mar 6

PMID 29503715

Citations 16

Authors

Hye-Nan Park

Young-Jun Lim

Won-Jin Yi

Jung-Suk Han

Seung-Pyo Lee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to design an intraoral environment simulator and to assess the accuracy of two intraoral scanners using the simulator.

Materials And Methods: A box-shaped intraoral environment simulator was designed to simulate two specific intraoral environments. The cast was scanned 10 times by Identica Blue (MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea), TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), and CS3500 (Carestream Dental, Georgia, USA) scanners in the two simulated groups. The distances between the left and right canines (D3), first molars (D6), second molars (D7), and the left canine and left second molar (D37) were measured. The distance data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results: The differences in intraoral environments were not statistically significant (>.05). Between intraoral scanners, statistically significant differences (<.05) were revealed by the Kruskal-Wallis test with regard to D3 and D6.

Conclusion: No difference due to the intraoral environment was revealed. The simulator will contribute to the higher accuracy of intraoral scanners in the future.

Citing Articles

[Evaluation of the accuracy of three-dimensional data acquisition from liquid- interference surfaces assisted by a scanner head with a compressed airflow system].

Xu X, Zhao J, Tian S, Liu Z, Zhao X, Zhao X Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2025; 57(1):121-127.

PMID: 39856516 PMC: 11759805.

Effect of saliva on accuracy of digital dental implant transfer using two different materials of intraoral scan bodies with different exposed lengths.

Tawfik M, El Torky I, El Sheikh M BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1428.

PMID: 39580420 PMC: 11585203. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05199-1.

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

Ciocan L, Vasilescu V, Rauta S, Pantea M, Pituru S, Imre M Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(13).

PMID: 39001343 PMC: 11241578. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14131453.

Analysis of the Pulpal Blood Flow Microdynamics during Prosthetic Tooth Preparation Using Diamond Burs with Different Degrees of Wear.

Ciora E, Miron M, Lungeanu D, Igna A, Jivanescu A Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(6).

PMID: 38920879 PMC: 11202490. DOI: 10.3390/dj12060178.

Heat generated during dental treatments affecting intrapulpal temperature: a review.

Lau X, Liu X, Chua H, Wang W, Dias M, Choi J Clin Oral Investig. 2023; 27(5):2277-2297.

PMID: 37022531 PMC: 10159962. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04951-1.

References

Jeong I, Lee J, Jeon J, Kim J, Kim H, Kim W . Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(6):755-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007. View

Creed B, Kau C, English J, Xia J, Lee R . A Comparison of the Accuracy of Linear Measurements Obtained from Cone Beam Computerized Tomography Images and Digital Models. Semin Orthod. 2015; 17(1):49-56. PMC: 4642285. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2010.08.010. View

Nedelcu R, Persson A . 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027. View

Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci G, Chen C, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B . Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 27(4):465-72. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12567. View

Hayashi K, Sachdeva A, Saitoh S, Lee S, Kubota T, Mizoguchi I . Assessment of the accuracy and reliability of new 3-dimensional scanning devices. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144(4):619-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.021. View

Patzelt S, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W . Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145(11):1133-40. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.87. View

Flugge T, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger M . 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(3):471-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017. View

Spierings T, Peters M, Plasschaert A . Surface temperature of oral tissues. A review. J Biol Buccale. 1984; 12(2):91-9. View

Duret F, Blouin J, Duret B . CAD-CAM in dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 1988; 117(6):715-20. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1988.0096. View

10.

Saraiva L, Aguiar T, Costa L, Cavalcanti A, Giannini M, Mathias P . Influence of intraoral temperature and relative humidity on the dentin bond strength: an in situ study. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014; 27(2):92-9. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12098. View

11.

Andriessen F, Rijkens D, van der Meer W, Wismeijer D . Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 111(3):186-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010. View

12.

Su T, Sun J . Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 59(4):236-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002. View

13.

Morris J . CAD/CAM options in dental implant treatment planning. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010; 38(5):333-6. View

14.

Kachalia P, Geissberger M . Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010; 38(5):323-30. View

15.

Patzelt S, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub J, Att W . Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 18(6):1687-94. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y. View

16.

Flugge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K . Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29(3):277-83. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4417. View

17.

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. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1. View

18.

Besnault C, Attal J . Influence of a simulated oral environment on dentin bond strength of two adhesive systems. Am J Dent. 2002; 14(6):367-72. View