Cargando…

Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method

BACKGROUNDS: Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the dev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nagy, Zsolt, Simon, Botond, Mennito, Anthony, Evans, Zachary, Renne, Walter, Vág, János
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7137345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32264943
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01090-x
_version_ 1783518409609183232
author Nagy, Zsolt
Simon, Botond
Mennito, Anthony
Evans, Zachary
Renne, Walter
Vág, János
author_facet Nagy, Zsolt
Simon, Botond
Mennito, Anthony
Evans, Zachary
Renne, Walter
Vág, János
author_sort Nagy, Zsolt
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUNDS: Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems. METHODS: Digital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: The deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53 ± 2 μm) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156 ± 8 μm) and CS 3600 (365 ± 29 μm), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531 ± 26 μm), Element 2 (246 ± 11 μm), Emerald (317 ± 13 μm), Omnicam (174 ± 11 μm), Planscan (903 ± 49 μm). CONCLUSIONS: The physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7137345
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71373452020-04-11 Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method Nagy, Zsolt Simon, Botond Mennito, Anthony Evans, Zachary Renne, Walter Vág, János BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUNDS: Intraoral scanner (IOS) accuracy is commonly evaluated using full-arch surface comparison, which fails to take into consideration the starting position of the scanning (scan origin). Previously a novel method was developed, which takes into account the scan origin and calculates the deviation of predefined identical points between references and test models. This method may reveal the error caused by stitching individual images during intraoral scan. This study aimed to validate the novel method by comparing the trueness of seven IOSs (Element 1, Element 2, Emerald, Omnicam, Planscan, Trios 3, CS 3600) to a physical impression digitized by laboratory scanner which lacks linear stitching problems. METHODS: Digital test models of a dentate human cadaver maxilla were made by IOSs and by laboratory scanner after polyvinylsiloxane impression. All scans started on the occlusal surface of the tooth #15 (universal notation, scan origin) and finished at tooth #2. The reference model and test models were superimposed at the scan origin in GOM Inspect software. Deviations were measured between identical points on three different axes, and the complex 3D deviation was calculated. The effect of scanners, tooth, and axis was statistically analyzed by the generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: The deviation gradually increased as the distance from scan origin increased for the IOSs but not for the physical impression. The highest deviation occurred mostly at the apico-coronal axis for the IOSs. The mean deviation of the physical impression (53 ± 2 μm) was not significantly different from the Trios 3 (156 ± 8 μm) and CS 3600 (365 ± 29 μm), but it was significantly lower than the values of Element 1 (531 ± 26 μm), Element 2 (246 ± 11 μm), Emerald (317 ± 13 μm), Omnicam (174 ± 11 μm), Planscan (903 ± 49 μm). CONCLUSIONS: The physical impression was superior compared to the IOSs on dentate full-arch of human cadaver. The novel method could reveal the stitching error of IOSs, which may partly be caused by the difficulties in depth measurement. BioMed Central 2020-04-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7137345/ /pubmed/32264943 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01090-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nagy, Zsolt
Simon, Botond
Mennito, Anthony
Evans, Zachary
Renne, Walter
Vág, János
Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method
title Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method
title_full Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method
title_fullStr Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method
title_short Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method
title_sort comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7137345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32264943
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01090-x
work_keys_str_mv AT nagyzsolt comparingthetruenessofsevenintraoralscannersandaphysicalimpressionondentatehumanmaxillabyanovelmethod
AT simonbotond comparingthetruenessofsevenintraoralscannersandaphysicalimpressionondentatehumanmaxillabyanovelmethod
AT mennitoanthony comparingthetruenessofsevenintraoralscannersandaphysicalimpressionondentatehumanmaxillabyanovelmethod
AT evanszachary comparingthetruenessofsevenintraoralscannersandaphysicalimpressionondentatehumanmaxillabyanovelmethod
AT rennewalter comparingthetruenessofsevenintraoralscannersandaphysicalimpressionondentatehumanmaxillabyanovelmethod
AT vagjanos comparingthetruenessofsevenintraoralscannersandaphysicalimpressionondentatehumanmaxillabyanovelmethod