A novel reference model for dental scanning system evaluation: analysis of five intraoral scanners
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of five intraoral scanners (IOS) using a novel reference model for standardized performance evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Five IOSs (Medit i500, Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4) were used to digitize the reference model, which represented a simplified full-arch situation with four abutment teeth. Each IOS was used five times by an experienced operator, resulting in 25 STL (Standard Tessellation Language) files. STL data were imported into 3D software (Final Surface®) and examined for inter- and intra-group analyses. Deviations in the parameter matching error were calculated. ANOVA F-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied for inter-group comparisons (α = .05); and the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for intra-group comparisons (in % ± SD). RESULTS. Primescan (matching error value: 0.015), Trios 3 (0.016), and Trios 4 (0.018) revealed comparable results with significantly higher accuracy compared to Medit i500 (0.035) and Omnicam (0.028) (P < .001). For intra-group comparison, Trios 4 demonstrated the most homogenous results (CV 15.8%). CONCLUSION. The novel reference model investigated in this study can be used to assess the performance of dental scanning technologies in the daily routine setting and in research settings.
Abstract
PURPOSE. The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of five intraoral scanners (IOS) using a novel reference model for standardized performance evaluation. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Five IOSs (Medit i500, Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4) were used to digitize the reference model, which represented a simplified full-arch situation with four abutment teeth. Each IOS was used five times by an experienced operator, resulting in 25 STL (Standard Tessellation Language) files. STL data were imported into 3D software (Final Surface®) and examined for inter- and intra-group analyses. Deviations in the parameter matching error were calculated. ANOVA F-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied for inter-group comparisons (α = .05); and the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for intra-group comparisons (in % ± SD). RESULTS. Primescan (matching error value: 0.015), Trios 3 (0.016), and Trios 4 (0.018) revealed comparable results with significantly higher accuracy compared to Medit i500 (0.035) and Omnicam (0.028) (P < .001). For intra-group comparison, Trios 4 demonstrated the most homogenous results (CV 15.8%). CONCLUSION. The novel reference model investigated in this study can be used to assess the performance of dental scanning technologies in the daily routine setting and in research settings.
참고문헌 (24)
- Zimmermann M, "Intraoral scanning systems-a current overview", Int J Comput Dent, 18, pp.101~129 (2015)
- Joda T, "Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures : a randomized crossover trial", Clin Oral Implants Res, 27, pp.e185~e189 (2016)
- Schepke U, "Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns : Operating time and patient preference", J Prosthet Dent, 114, pp.403~406 (2015)
- Joda T, "Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.1318~1323 (2017)
- Di Fiore A, "Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns : a comparison of key considerations", Int J Prosthodont, 31, pp.577~579 (2018)
- Wismeijer D, "Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions(Intraoral Scan)of dental implants", Clin Oral Implants Res, 25, pp.1113~1118 (2014)
- Christensen GJ, "Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?", J Am Dent Assoc, 139, pp.761~763 (2008)
- Yuzbasioglu E, "Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques:evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes", BMC Oral Health, 14, pp.10~ (2014)
- Goracci C, "Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for fullarch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence", Eur J Orthod, 38, pp.422~428 (2016)
- Ender A, "Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision", J Vis Exp, (86), pp.51374~ (2014)
- Ender A, "Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems", Int J Comput Dent, 16, pp.11~21 (2013)
- 서상완, "A standardization model based on image recognition for performance evaluation of an oral scanner", The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics, 9(6), pp.409~415 (2017), 대한치과보철학회[DOI]
- Chiu A, "Accuracy of CADCAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters", Sensors(Basel), 20, pp.1157~ (2020)
- Bernauer SA, "Influence of preparation design, marginal gingiva location, and tooth morphology on the accuracy of digital impressions for full-crown restorations: an in vitro investigation", J Clin Med, 9, pp.3984~ (2020)
- Mennito AS, "Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems", J Esthet Restor Dent, 30, pp.113~118 (2018)
- Narin Kaewbuasa, "Effect of different arch widths on the accuracy of three intraoral scanners", The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics, 13(4), pp.205~215 (2021), 대한치과보철학회[DOI]
- Patzelt SB, "Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners", Clin Oral Investig, 18, pp.1687~1694 (2014)
- Mangano FG, "Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology : a comparative in vitro study", PLoS One, 11, pp.e0163107~ (2016)
- Rutkunas V, "The effect of different cleaning protocols of polymer-based prosthetic materials on the behavior of human gingival fibroblasts", Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17, pp.7753~ (2020)
- Albdour EA, "A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions", BMC Oral Health, 18, pp.117~ (2018)
- Ferrari M, "The ability of marginal detection using different intraoral scanning systems : A pilot randomized controlled trial", Am J Dent, 31, pp.272~276 (2018)
- Nedelcu RG, "Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners : an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis", J Prosthet Dent, 112, pp.1461~1471 (2014)
- Joda T, "The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics : a systematic review", BMC Oral Health, 17, pp.124~ (2017)
- "Standards for digital dental impressions" (2015)[URL]