Cargando…

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

PURPOSE: The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibilit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Park, Ji-Man
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27826385
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
_version_ 1782465881000902656
author Park, Ji-Man
author_facet Park, Ji-Man
author_sort Park, Ji-Man
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05). RESULTS: The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups. CONCLUSION: Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5099127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50991272016-11-08 Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form Park, Ji-Man J Adv Prosthodont Original Article PURPOSE: The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05). RESULTS: The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups. CONCLUSION: Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized. The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2016-10 2016-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5099127/ /pubmed/27826385 http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354 Text en © 2016 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Park, Ji-Man
Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
title Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
title_full Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
title_fullStr Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
title_short Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
title_sort comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27826385
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
work_keys_str_mv AT parkjiman comparativeanalysisonreproducibilityamong5intraoralscannerssectionalanalysisaccordingtorestorationtypeandpreparationoutlineform