Cargando…

A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study

AIM: The accuracy of a dental impression is determined by two factors: “trueness” and “precision.” The scanners used in dentistry are relatively new in market, and very few studies have compared the “precision” and “trueness” of intraoral scanner with the extraoral scanner. The aim of this study was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sason, Gursharan Kaur, Mistry, Gaurang, Tabassum, Rubina, Shetty, Omkar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5903173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29692563
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_224_17
_version_ 1783314902316744704
author Sason, Gursharan Kaur
Mistry, Gaurang
Tabassum, Rubina
Shetty, Omkar
author_facet Sason, Gursharan Kaur
Mistry, Gaurang
Tabassum, Rubina
Shetty, Omkar
author_sort Sason, Gursharan Kaur
collection PubMed
description AIM: The accuracy of a dental impression is determined by two factors: “trueness” and “precision.” The scanners used in dentistry are relatively new in market, and very few studies have compared the “precision” and “trueness” of intraoral scanner with the extraoral scanner. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten dentulous participants (male/female) aged 18–45 years with an asymptomatic endodontically treated mandibular first molars with adjacent teeth present were selected for this study. The prepared test tooth was measured using a digital Vernier caliper to obtain reference datasets. The tooth was then scanned using the intraoral scanner, and the extraoral scans were obtained using the casts made from the impressions. The datasets were divided into four groups and then statistically analyzed. The test tooth preparation was done, and dimples were made using a round diamond point on the bucco-occlusal, mesio-occlusal, disto-occlusal, and linguo-occlusal lines angles, and these were used to obtain reference datasets intraorally using a digital Vernier caliper. The test tooth was then scanned with the IO scanner (CS 3500, Carestream dental) thrice and also impressions were made using addition silicone impression material (3M™ ESPE) and dental casts were poured in Type IV dental stone (Kalrock-Kalabhai Karson India Pvt. Ltd., India) which were later scanned with the EO scanner (LAVA™ Scan ST Design system [3M™ ESPE]) thrice. The Datasets obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral scanner were exported to Dental Wings software and readings were obtained. Repeated measures ANOVA test was used to compare differences between the groups and independent t-test for comparison between the readings of intraoral and extraoral scanner. Least significant difference test was used for comparison between reference datasets with intraoral and extraoral scanner, respectively. A level of statistical significance of P < 0.05 was set. RESULTS: The precision values ranged from 20.7 to 33.35 μm for intraoral scanner and 19.5 to 37 μm for extraoral scanner. The mean deviations for intraoral scanner were 19.6 μm mesiodistally (MD) and 16.4 μm buccolingually (BL) and 24.0 μm MD and 22.5 μm BL for extraoral scanner. The mean values of the intraoral scanner (413 μm) for trueness were closest to the actual measurements (459 μm) than the extraoral scanner (396 μm). CONCLUSION: The intraoral scanner showed higher “precision” and “trueness” values when compared with the extraoral scanner.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5903173
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59031732019-04-01 A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study Sason, Gursharan Kaur Mistry, Gaurang Tabassum, Rubina Shetty, Omkar J Indian Prosthodont Soc Original Article AIM: The accuracy of a dental impression is determined by two factors: “trueness” and “precision.” The scanners used in dentistry are relatively new in market, and very few studies have compared the “precision” and “trueness” of intraoral scanner with the extraoral scanner. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten dentulous participants (male/female) aged 18–45 years with an asymptomatic endodontically treated mandibular first molars with adjacent teeth present were selected for this study. The prepared test tooth was measured using a digital Vernier caliper to obtain reference datasets. The tooth was then scanned using the intraoral scanner, and the extraoral scans were obtained using the casts made from the impressions. The datasets were divided into four groups and then statistically analyzed. The test tooth preparation was done, and dimples were made using a round diamond point on the bucco-occlusal, mesio-occlusal, disto-occlusal, and linguo-occlusal lines angles, and these were used to obtain reference datasets intraorally using a digital Vernier caliper. The test tooth was then scanned with the IO scanner (CS 3500, Carestream dental) thrice and also impressions were made using addition silicone impression material (3M™ ESPE) and dental casts were poured in Type IV dental stone (Kalrock-Kalabhai Karson India Pvt. Ltd., India) which were later scanned with the EO scanner (LAVA™ Scan ST Design system [3M™ ESPE]) thrice. The Datasets obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral scanner were exported to Dental Wings software and readings were obtained. Repeated measures ANOVA test was used to compare differences between the groups and independent t-test for comparison between the readings of intraoral and extraoral scanner. Least significant difference test was used for comparison between reference datasets with intraoral and extraoral scanner, respectively. A level of statistical significance of P < 0.05 was set. RESULTS: The precision values ranged from 20.7 to 33.35 μm for intraoral scanner and 19.5 to 37 μm for extraoral scanner. The mean deviations for intraoral scanner were 19.6 μm mesiodistally (MD) and 16.4 μm buccolingually (BL) and 24.0 μm MD and 22.5 μm BL for extraoral scanner. The mean values of the intraoral scanner (413 μm) for trueness were closest to the actual measurements (459 μm) than the extraoral scanner (396 μm). CONCLUSION: The intraoral scanner showed higher “precision” and “trueness” values when compared with the extraoral scanner. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5903173/ /pubmed/29692563 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_224_17 Text en Copyright: © 2018 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sason, Gursharan Kaur
Mistry, Gaurang
Tabassum, Rubina
Shetty, Omkar
A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study
title A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study
title_full A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study
title_short A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: An in vivo study
title_sort comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: an in vivo study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5903173/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29692563
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_224_17
work_keys_str_mv AT sasongursharankaur acomparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy
AT mistrygaurang acomparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy
AT tabassumrubina acomparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy
AT shettyomkar acomparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy
AT sasongursharankaur comparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy
AT mistrygaurang comparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy
AT tabassumrubina comparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy
AT shettyomkar comparativeevaluationofintraoralandextraoraldigitalimpressionsaninvivostudy