Cargando…

Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison

BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nedelcu, Robert, Olsson, Pontus, Nyström, Ingela, Thor, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29471825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3
_version_ 1783302024887009280
author Nedelcu, Robert
Olsson, Pontus
Nyström, Ingela
Thor, Andreas
author_facet Nedelcu, Robert
Olsson, Pontus
Nyström, Ingela
Thor, Andreas
author_sort Nedelcu, Robert
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. METHODS: A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/− 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. CONCLUSIONS: There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5824445
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58244452018-02-26 Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison Nedelcu, Robert Olsson, Pontus Nyström, Ingela Thor, Andreas BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. METHODS: A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/− 25 μm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. CONCLUSIONS: There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply. BioMed Central 2018-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5824445/ /pubmed/29471825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nedelcu, Robert
Olsson, Pontus
Nyström, Ingela
Thor, Andreas
Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
title Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
title_full Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
title_fullStr Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
title_full_unstemmed Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
title_short Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
title_sort finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5824445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29471825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3
work_keys_str_mv AT nedelcurobert finishlinedistinctnessandaccuracyin7intraoralscannersversusconventionalimpressionaninvitrodescriptivecomparison
AT olssonpontus finishlinedistinctnessandaccuracyin7intraoralscannersversusconventionalimpressionaninvitrodescriptivecomparison
AT nystromingela finishlinedistinctnessandaccuracyin7intraoralscannersversusconventionalimpressionaninvitrodescriptivecomparison
AT thorandreas finishlinedistinctnessandaccuracyin7intraoralscannersversusconventionalimpressionaninvitrodescriptivecomparison