Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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):903–908

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schoenbaum TR (2010) Decoding CAD/CAM and digital impression units. Dent Today 29(2):140, 142, 144–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL (1983) Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. J Oral Rehabil 10(4):325–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Endo T, Finger WJ (2006) Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Quintessence Int 37(1):47–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jamani KD, Harrington E, Wilson HJ (1989) Rigidity of elastomeric impression materials. J Oral Rehabil 16(3):241–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):49–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shetty P, Rodrigues S (2006) Accuracy of elastomeric impression materials on repeated pours. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 6(2):61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M (2009) Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 22(2):158–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zweig A (2009) Improving impressions: go digital! Dent Today 28(11):100, 102, 104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139(6):761–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Christensen GJ (2009) Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 140(10):1301–1304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):283–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Babayoff N, Glaser-Inbari I (2000) Imaging a three-dimensional structure by confocal focussing an array of light beams. International Publication WO 00/08415

  20. Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB, Stevens C, Cohen B (2009) 3D digital scanners: a high-tech approach to more accurate dental impressions. Insid Dent 5:70–74

    Google Scholar 

  21. Wachman ES, Niu W, Farkas DL (1997) AOTF microscope for imaging with increased speed and spectral versatility. Biophys J 73(3):1215–1222

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brandestini M, Moermann WH (1989) Method of and apparatus for making a prosthesis, especially a dental prosthesis. US Patent 4663720

  23. Schwotzer A (2007) Measuring device and method that operates according to the basic principles of confocal microscopy. US Patent 2007/0296959

  24. Thiel F, Pfeiffer J, Fornoff P (2008) Apparatus and method for optical 3D measurement. International Publication WO 2008/092791

  25. Schmidt V (2010) 3D dental camera for recording surface structures of a measuring object by means of triangulation. International Publication WO 2010/012838 A1

  26. Seitz G, Tiziani HJ (1996) Resolution limits of active triangulation systems by defocusing. Opt Eng 32(6):1374–1383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 183–194

  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. Berner M (2010) Optical system for a confocal microscope. US Patent 2010/0085636

  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. Besl PJ, McKay ND (1992) A method for registration of 3-D shapes. In: IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 14(2):239–256

  32. Yang C, Medioni G (1992) Object modeling by registration of multiple range images. Image Vis Comput 10(3):145–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center Freiburg, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Sebastian B. M. Patzelt, Archontia Emmanouilidi, Joerg R. Strub & Wael Att

  2. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland Baltimore, 650 West Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA

    Sebastian B. M. Patzelt

  3. Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, Department of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Susanne Stampf

Authors
  1. Sebastian B. M. Patzelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Archontia Emmanouilidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susanne Stampf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joerg R. Strub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wael Att
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian B. M. Patzelt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Patzelt, S.B.M., Emmanouilidi, A., Stampf, S. et al. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Invest 18, 1687–1694 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation