Evaluation of the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners for endocrown digital impression: An in vitro study
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) on digital impressions of different types of endocrown cavity preparations. Materials and methods: Two human mandibular molar teeth were prepared with different endocrown abutment designs: one with a buccal wall (Class 2) and the other without a buccal wall (Class 3). Both cavity designs were scanned using a reference desktop scanner (E3) and three different intraoral scanners: Trios3 (TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (CER group), and i500 (I5 group). The obtained Standard Tessellation Language (.stl) datasets were exported to metrology software. The precision was evaluated based on deviations among repeated scan models recorded by each IOS. The trueness was evaluated based on deviations between the reference data and repeated scans. For detecting interaction, data were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and for analyzing the comparison of the test groups data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test at the significance level of .05. Results: The deviation values for both cavity designs in the I5 group were significantly lower than those in the other IOS groups in terms of trueness. For both cavity designs, the TRI group exhibited better precision than the other IOS groups. Conclusion: Different technologies of IOS device’s and different endocrown prepration designs affected the accuracy of the digital scans.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs) on digital impressions of different types of endocrown cavity preparations. Materials and methods: Two human mandibular molar teeth were prepared with different endocrown abutment designs: one with a buccal wall (Class 2) and the other without a buccal wall (Class 3). Both cavity designs were scanned using a reference desktop scanner (E3) and three different intraoral scanners: Trios3 (TRI group), Cerec Omnicam (CER group), and i500 (I5 group). The obtained Standard Tessellation Language (.stl) datasets were exported to metrology software. The precision was evaluated based on deviations among repeated scan models recorded by each IOS. The trueness was evaluated based on deviations between the reference data and repeated scans. For detecting interaction, data were statistically analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and for analyzing the comparison of the test groups data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey test at the significance level of .05. Results: The deviation values for both cavity designs in the I5 group were significantly lower than those in the other IOS groups in terms of trueness. For both cavity designs, the TRI group exhibited better precision than the other IOS groups. Conclusion: Different technologies of IOS device’s and different endocrown prepration designs affected the accuracy of the digital scans.
참고문헌 (26)
- Hasanzade M, "Comparative evaluation of the internal and marginal adaptations of CAD", CAM endocrowns and crowns fabricated from three different materials, 2020, ~
- Belleflamme MM, "No post-no core approach to restore severely damaged posterior teeth: An up to 10-year retrospective study of documented endocrown cases", J Dent, 63, pp.1~7 (2017)
- Biacchi GR, "The endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars", J Esthet Restor Dent, 25, pp.383~390 (2013)
- Bernhart J, "Cerec3D endocrowns--two-year clinical examination of CAD", CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars, 2010, pp.13, 141~154
- Qin F, "Evaluation of machinability and flexural strength of a novel dental machinable glass-ceramic", J Dent, 37, pp.776~780 (2009)
- Zimmermann M, "Three-dimensional digital evaluation of the fit of endocrowns fabricated from different CAD", CAM materials, 2019, pp.28, e504~e509
- Osnes CA, "Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro", J Prosthodont Res, 64, pp.6~11 (2020)
- Yang X, "Accuracy of digital impressions and fitness of single crowns based on digital impressions", Materials (Basel), 8, pp.3945~3957 (2015)
- 박지만, "Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form", The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics, 8(5), pp.354~362 (2016), 대한치과보철학회[DOI]
- Mangano F, "Digital versus analog procedures for the prosthetic restoration of single implants: A randomized controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up", Biomed Res Int, 2018, pp.5325032~ (2018)
- Mangano FG, "Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study", BMC Oral Health, 19, pp.101~ (2019)
- Mühlemann S, "Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implantsupported reconstructions more efficient and", or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review, 2018, pp.29, 184~195
- Carbajal Mejía JB, "Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions", J Prosthet Dent, 118, pp.392~399 (2017)
- Ender A, "Accuracy of completeand partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro", Int J Comput Dent, 22, pp.11~19 (2019)
- Seelbach P, "Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow", Clin Oral Investig, 17, pp.1759~1764 (2013)
- Park JM, "Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations", J Prosthet Dent, 123, pp.113~120 (2020)
- Ender A, "In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions", J Prosthet Dent, 115, pp.313~320 (2016)
- Patzelt SB, "Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners", Clin Oral Investig, 18, pp.1687~1694 (2014)
- Patzelt SB, "Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws", J Am Dent Assoc, 144, pp.914~920 (2013)
- Ahlholm P, "Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics:A review", J Prosthodont, 27, pp.35~41 (2018)
- Ender A, "Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions:a new method of measuring trueness and precision", J Prosthet Dent, 109, pp.121~128 (2013)
- Ender A, "Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems", Int J Comput Dent, 16, pp.11~21 (2013)
- Haddadi Y, "Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device", Int J Prosthodont, 31, pp.375~376 (2018)
- Richert R, "Intraoral scanner technologies:A review to make a successful impression", J Healthc Eng, 2017, pp.8427595~ (2017)
- Medina-Sotomayor P, "Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions", J Clin Exp Dent, 10, pp.e361~e366 (2018)
- Jeon JH, "Three-dimensional evaluation of the repeatability of scanned conventional impressions of prepared teeth generated with white- and blue-light scanners", J Prosthet Dent, 114, pp.549~553 (2015)