Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of the dental arch display using modern intraoral three-dimensional scanners

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅存取

详细

BACKGROUND: At present, modern dentists used dental intraoral three-dimensional (3D) scanners routinely in their daily work. Obtaining an optical 3D image of the teeth and dentition helps avoid errors at the stage of obtaining traditional silicone impressions and significantly reduces the level of discomfort during dental procedures. Intraoral scanner systems are commercially available today. Despite their advantages over traditional silicone impressions, the accuracy of the optical impressions obtained during total and subtotal prosthetics on the upper and lower jaw are still questionable.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of scanning models of the patient’s dentition obtained using intraoral scanners and to determine the currently available models of digital devices that are optimal in terms of price and quality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The reference scan (master model) was an optical image of the reference model of the upper jaw of a patient with a full dentition made by additive 3D-printing technology obtained using a laboratory scanner. To level out the shrinkage errors of photopolymerization materials, the resulting model was scanned on the same day using intraoral scanners selected for the study. The obtained scan results were compared with the reference scan of the control group. Based on the measurements made at reference points, the average error value relative to the master model and its precision were calculated for each scanner. In addition to the average values, the error parameters of the scanners in the frontal and chewing sections were calculated, as well as the arc error, which was equal to the difference in the values of the discrepancy at the reference points at which the maximum and minimum values were obtained. The cost and availability of scanners on the domestic market, under the sanctions policy of foreign countries, were also considered.

RESULTS: The CEREC Primescan AC scanner showed the best accuracy according to the results of model discrepancies. It has an average error of 13.72±7.34. The arc error was 18.8 microns, and the discrepancies in the frontal area and chewing area were 18 and 6.8 microns, respectively. 3Shape Trios 3 scanner has the closest accuracy, with an average error of 16.28±5.94 microns. The error value of Aoralscan 3 was 42.08±18.34 microns, its arc accuracy was 65 microns, and the discrepancies in the frontal and chewing areas were 33 and 55.1 microns, respectively. Emerald S Mode C had an average error of 35.84±22.29 microns, which was higher than that of Medit i500 and Aoralscan 3; however, Aoralscan 3 showed better precision (18.34 microns versus 22.29 microns). According to the comparison results of the models in the MeshLab program, CEREC Primescan AC showed the smallest median of distances (18 microns). The TRIOS 3 and Emerald S Mode C differed from the standard by an average of 29 microns, and Aoralscan 3 scanners had of 33 microns and Medit i500 had 41 microns.

CONCLUSION: The precision of Aoralscan 3 scanner, which is the best among its analogs in the price category, makes it the most affordable scanner for dental surgical, orthodontic, and orthopedic fields. CEREC Primescan AC is the leader of the premium scanners involved in the study and available in the dental market.

作者简介

Irina Borodina

RUDN University of Russia

Email: 7599839@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4278-2026

Postgraduate Student

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Leon Grigoryants

RUDN University of Russia

Email: leongrigoriants@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8658-8834

Student

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Magammed Gadzhiev

RUDN University of Russia

Email: dr.gadjievma@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1878-503X

Postgraduate Student

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Svetlana Apresyan

RUDN University of Russia

Email: s-apresyan@bk.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3360-2601

Resident

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Roman Batov

RUDN University of Russia

Email: rbatov123@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1889-6274

Resident

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Alexander Stepanov

RUDN University of Russia

Email: stepanovmd@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6543-0998

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

Samvel Apresyan

RUDN University of Russia

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: dr.apresyan@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3281-707X

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

俄罗斯联邦, Moscow

参考

  1. Apresyan SV, Stepanov AG, Vardanyan BA. Digital protocol for comprehensive planning of dental treatment. Clinical case analysis. Stomatologiya. 2021;100(3):65–71. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/stomat202110003165
  2. Apresyan SV, Stepanov AG, Retinskaya MV, Suonio VK. Development of complex of digital planning of dental treatment and assessment of its clinical effectiveness. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2020;24(3):135–140. doi: 10.17816/1728-2802-2020-24-3-135-140
  3. Apresyan SV, Suonio VK, Stepanov AG, Kovalskaya TV. Evaluation of functional potential of CAD-programs in integrated digital planning of dental treatment. Russian Journal of Dentistry. 2020;24(3):131–134. doi: 10.17816/1728-2802-2020-24-3-131-134
  4. Kostiukova VV, Riakhovskiy AN, Ukhanov MM. Comparative study of intraoral 3D digital scanners for restorative dentistry. Stomatologiya. 2014;93(1):53–59. (In Russ).
  5. Riakhovskiy AN, Kostiukova VV. Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems. Stomatologiya. 2016;95(4):65–70. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/stomat201695465-70
  6. Zhulev EN, Vokulova YuA. Studying the dimensional accuracy of artificial crowns made using a CAD/CAM system and a 3D printer. Znanstvena Misel. 2020;40(2):20–24.
  7. Velmakina IV, Zhulev EN, Bogomolova YuB. Comparative assessment of the dimensional accuracy of digital models of jaws made using stereolithography technology. Modern Problems of Science and Education. 2018;(3).
  8. Emara A, Sharma N, Halbeisen FS, et al. Comparative evaluation of digitization of diagnostic dental cast (plaster) models using different scanning technologies. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8(3):79. doi: 10.3390/dj8030079
  9. Jelicich A, Scialabba R, Lee SJ. Positional trueness of abutments by using a digital die-merging protocol compared with complete arch direct digital scans and conventional dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2022:S0022-3913(22)00145-7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.02.020
  10. Joós-Kovács G, Vecsei B, Körmendi S, et al. Trueness of CAD/CAM digitization with a desktop scanner — an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):280. doi: 10.1186/s12903-019-0976-1
  11. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):109–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010
  12. Cao Y, Chen JK, Deng KH, et al. Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020;52(1):129–137. (In Chinese). doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.01.021
  13. Diker B, Tak Ö. Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12(5):299–306. doi: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.299
  14. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(3):101–121. doi: 10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21
  15. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(1):36–42. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024
  16. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström 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. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3
  17. Ferrini F, Sannino G, Chiola C, et al. Influence of intra-oral scanner (I.O.S.) on the marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM single crowns. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(4):544. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16040544
  18. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, et al. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci. 2018;60(1):1–7. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.17-0444
  19. Apresyan SV, Stepanov AG, Antonik MM, et al. Complex digital planning of dental treatment. Moscow: Mozartika; 2020. 396 p. (In Russ).
  20. Rozov RA, Trezubov VN, Shalaginova AV, Kusevickiy LYa. Comparative in vitro evaluation of the accuracy of dental open system scanners. Parodontologiya. 2020;25(3):231–236. (In Russ). doi: 10.33925/1683-3759-2020-25-3-231-236

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the principle of operation of the intraoral scanner.

下载 (109KB)
3. Fig. 2. A model of the upper jaw printed on a 3D printer by Form labs (USA).

下载 (115KB)
4. Fig. 3. Reference digital model obtained on a laboratory scanner.

下载 (96KB)
5. Fig. 4. Comparison of two models in the Exocad program.

下载 (255KB)
6. Fig. 5. View of superimposed models after activating the Match exactly function.

下载 (342KB)
7. Fig. 6. Color visualization scale for matching two three-dimensional images.

下载 (70KB)
8. Fig. 7. Measurement of the value of the discrepancy of the models at the reference point in a perpendicular section.

下载 (243KB)
9. Fig. 8. Menu for comparing two volumetric images.

下载 (113KB)
10. Fig. 9. Example of digital casts matching in MeshLab program.

下载 (659KB)
11. Fig. 10. Program menu after finding the median of distances.

下载 (112KB)

版权所有 © Borodina I.D., Grigoryants L.S., Gadzhiev M.A., Apresyan S.S., Batov R.V., Stepanov A.G., Apresyan S.V., 2022

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用-禁止演绎 4.0国际许可协议的许可。
 


##common.cookie##