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

Overview

Journal Materials (Basel)

Publisher MDPI

Date 2020 Apr 15

PMID 32283591

Citations 11

Authors

Keunbada Son

Kyu-Bok Lee

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

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 ( < 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.

Citing Articles

Influence of different dental scenarios on the accuracy of computerized optical impressions: an in vitro pilot study.

Saravi B, Paffenholz C, Hazard D, Kohal R, Patzelt S Clin Oral Investig. 2025; 29(3):162.

PMID: 40016551 PMC: 11868131. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-025-06245-0.

Comparisons of precision and trueness of digital dental casts produced by desktop scanners and intraoral scanners.

Chuang C, Cheng F, Chen M, Lin W, Chiang C J Dent Sci. 2025; 20(1):137-146.

PMID: 39873032 PMC: 11763548. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.09.016.

Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners.

Khoshkhahesh M, Enteghad S, Aghasadeghi K, Farzin M, Taghva M, Mosadad S Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024; 10(3):e899.

PMID: 38752461 PMC: 11097246. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.899.

Comparative analysis on efficiency and accuracy of parallel confocal microscopy and three-dimensional in motion video with triangulation technology-based intraoral scanner under influence of moisture and mouth opening - A crossover clinical trial.

Sindhu J, Maiti S, Nallaswamy D J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2023; 23(3):234-243.

PMID: 37929362 PMC: 10467319. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_65_23.

Effect of Scanning Origin Location on Data Accuracy of Abutment Teeth Region in Digital Impression Acquired Using Intraoral Scanner for Removable Partial Denture: A Preliminary In Vitro Study.

Kim E, Wada J, Sakamoto K, Ishioka Y, Arai Y, Murakami N J Clin Med. 2022; 11(24).

PMID: 36556008 PMC: 9783230. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11247392.

References

Anh J, Park J, Chun Y, Kim M, Kim M . A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46(1):3-12. PMC: 4751299. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3. View

Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H . Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61(4):450-459. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.01.005. View

Ferrini F, Cappare P, Vinci R, Gherlone E, Sannino G . Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Posterior Maxillary Rehabilitations Supported by One Straight and One Tilted Implant: A 3-Year Prospective Comparative Study. Biomed Res Int. 2018; 2018:4149107. PMC: 6252190. DOI: 10.1155/2018/4149107. View

Son K, Lee W, Lee K . Prediction of the learning curves of 2 dental CAD software programs. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 121(1):95-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.004. View

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

Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D . Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(4):554-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.001. View

Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M . Intraoral digital scans: Part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(5):575-580. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.004. View

Leonardi R, Muraglie S, Giudice A, Aboulazm K, Nucera R . Evaluation of mandibular symmetry and morphology in adult patients with unilateral posterior crossbite: a CBCT study using a surface-to-surface matching technique. Eur J Orthod. 2020; 42(6):650-657. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjz106. View

May L, Kelly J, Bottino M, Hill T . Influence of the resin cement thickness on the fatigue failure loads of CAD/CAM feldspathic crowns. Dent Mater. 2015; 31(8):895-900. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.04.019. View

10.

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

11.

Cattoni F, Tete G, Calloni A, Manazza F, Gastaldi G, Cappare P . Milled versus moulded mock-ups based on the superimposition of 3D meshes from digital oral impressions: a comparative in vitro study in the aesthetic area. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1):230. PMC: 6819647. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0922-2. View

12.

Gherlone E, Mandelli F, Cappare P, Pantaleo G, Traini T, Ferrini F . A 3 years retrospective study of survival for zirconia-based single crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions. J Dent. 2014; 42(9):1151-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.002. View

13.

Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Thor A . Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1):27. PMC: 5824445. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3. View

14.

Park G, Son K, Lee K . Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121(5):803-810. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.07.014. View

15.

Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M . Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(3):372-378. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003. View

16.

Koulivand S, Ghodsi S, Siadat H, Alikhasi M . A clinical comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques regarding finish line locations and impression time. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; 32(2):236-243. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12527. View

17.

Son K, Lee S, Kang S, Park J, Lee K, Jeon M . A Comparison Study of Marginal and Internal Fit Assessment Methods for Fixed Dental Prostheses. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(6). PMC: 6617221. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8060785. View

18.

Lim J, Park J, Kim M, Heo S, Myung J . Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 119(2):225-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002. View

19.

Isola G, Perillo L, Migliorati M, Matarese M, Dalessandri D, Grassia V . The impact of temporomandibular joint arthritis on functional disability and global health in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Eur J Orthod. 2018; 41(2):117-124. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjy034. View

20.

Uhm S, Kim J, Jiang H, Woo C, Chang M, Kim K . Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard. Dent Mater J. 2016; 36(1):27-34. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-064. View