Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1687–1694 | Cite as

Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

  • Sebastian B. M. Patzelt
  • Archontia Emmanouilidi
  • Susanne Stampf
  • Joerg R. Strub
  • Wael Att
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans.

Materials and methods

A representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). A level of statistical significance of p < 0.05 was set.

Results

Mean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Except for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions.

Clinical relevance

Despite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations.

Keywords

Intraoral scanner Digital impression Full-arch scan Accuracy of intraoral scanners Precision of intraoral scanners Trueness of intraoral scanners 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Sirona (Bensheim, Germany), 3M ESPE (St. Paul, USA), Cadent Inc. (Carlstadt, USA), and Zfx GmbH (Dachau, Germany) for providing intraoral scanners. Furthermore, the authors want to thank MDT Siegbert Witkowski and MDT Wolf Woerner (Freiburg, Germany) for their help in data processing.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2007) Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 35(12):903–908PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schoenbaum TR (2010) Decoding CAD/CAM and digital impression units. Dent Today 29(2):140, 142, 144–145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL (1983) Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil 10(4):325–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endo T, Finger WJ (2006) Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Quintessence Int 37(1):47–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jamani KD, Harrington E, Wilson HJ (1989) Rigidity of elastomeric impression materials. J Oral Rehabil 16(3):241–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shafa S, Zaree Z, Mosharraf R (2008) The effects of custom tray material on the accuracy of master casts. J Contemp Dent Pract 9(6):49–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shetty P, Rodrigues S (2006) Accuracy of elastomeric impression materials on repeated pours. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 6(2):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M (2009) Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 22(2):158–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zweig A (2009) Improving impressions: go digital! Dent Today 28(11):100, 102, 104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139(6):761–763PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christensen GJ (2009) Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 140(10):1301–1304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8(4):283–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 7(8):e43312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043312 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109(2):121–128. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2012) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B (2012) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Babayoff N, Glaser-Inbari I (2000) Imaging a three-dimensional structure by confocal focussing an array of light beams. International Publication WO 00/08415Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB, Stevens C, Cohen B (2009) 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Insid Dent 5:70–74Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wachman ES, Niu W, Farkas DL (1997) AOTF microscope for imaging with increased speed and spectral versatility. Biophys J 73(3):1215–1222PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brandestini M, Moermann WH (1989) Method of and apparatus for making a prosthesis, especially a dental prosthesis. US Patent 4663720Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwotzer A (2007) Measuring device and method that operates according to the basic principles of confocal microscopy. US Patent 2007/0296959Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thiel F, Pfeiffer J, Fornoff P (2008) Apparatus and method for optical 3D measurement. International Publication WO 2008/092791Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmidt V (2010) 3D dental camera for recording surface structures of a measuring object by means of triangulation. International Publication WO 2010/012838 A1Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seitz G, Tiziani HJ (1996) Resolution limits of active triangulation systems by defocusing. Opt Eng 32(6):1374–1383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kovács T (2004) Active triangulation scanner development focusing on the accuracy of the detection. In: 5th International Symposium of Hungarian Researchers: Sponsored by IEEE Computational Intelligence Chapter, Budapest, Magyarország, 2004.11.11–2004.11.12. pp 183–194Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Caponi M, Governi L, Blois L (2011) A comparative analysis of intraoral 3D digital scanners for restorative dentistry. Internet J Med Technol 5(1). http://ispub.com/IJMT/5/1/10082
  29. 29.
    Berner M (2010) Optical system for a confocal microscope. US Patent 2010/0085636Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Figerio F (2006) 3-dimensional surface imaging using active wavefront sampling (PhD Thesis). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts, USA. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/38258
  31. 31.
    Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. In: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 14(2):239–256Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang C, Medioni G (1992) Object modeling by registration of multiple range images. Image Vis Comput 10(3):145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mada SK, Smith ML, Smith LN, Midha PS (2003) Overview of passive and active vision techniques for hand-held 3D data acquisition. In: Shearer A, Murtagh FD, Mahon J, Whelan PF (eds) Opto-Ireland 2002: Optical metrology, imaging, and machine vision, Galway, Ireland, 2002. SPIE Digital Library. http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=879224

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian B. M. Patzelt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Archontia Emmanouilidi
    • 1
  • Susanne Stampf
    • 3
  • Joerg R. Strub
    • 1
  • Wael Att
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, School of DentistryUniversity Medical Center FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Periodontics, School of DentistryUniversity of Maryland BaltimoreBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Department of Medical Biometry and StatisticsUniversity Medical Center FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations