Cargando…
Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria
BACKGROUND: The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devic...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9044896/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35473932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4 |
_version_ | 1784695201436008448 |
---|---|
author | Róth, Ivett Czigola, Alexandra Fehér, Dóra Vitai, Viktória Joós-Kovács, Gellért Levente Hermann, Péter Borbély, Judit Vecsei, Bálint |
author_facet | Róth, Ivett Czigola, Alexandra Fehér, Dóra Vitai, Viktória Joós-Kovács, Gellért Levente Hermann, Péter Borbély, Judit Vecsei, Bálint |
author_sort | Róth, Ivett |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters. METHODS: In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs. RESULTS: The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study. CONCLUSION: The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9044896 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90448962022-04-28 Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria Róth, Ivett Czigola, Alexandra Fehér, Dóra Vitai, Viktória Joós-Kovács, Gellért Levente Hermann, Péter Borbély, Judit Vecsei, Bálint BMC Oral Health Research BACKGROUND: The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters. METHODS: In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs. RESULTS: The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study. CONCLUSION: The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019). BioMed Central 2022-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9044896/ /pubmed/35473932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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 Róth, Ivett Czigola, Alexandra Fehér, Dóra Vitai, Viktória Joós-Kovács, Gellért Levente Hermann, Péter Borbély, Judit Vecsei, Bálint Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria |
title | Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria |
title_full | Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria |
title_fullStr | Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria |
title_full_unstemmed | Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria |
title_short | Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria |
title_sort | digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9044896/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35473932 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rothivett digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria AT czigolaalexandra digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria AT feherdora digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria AT vitaiviktoria digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria AT jooskovacsgellertlevente digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria AT hermannpeter digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria AT borbelyjudit digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria AT vecseibalint digitalintraoralscannerdevicesavalidationstudybasedoncommonevaluationcriteria |