The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of 3D white light scanning of abutment teeth impressions: evaluation of trueness and precision

  • Jeon, Jin-Hun (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Hae-Young (Department of Public Health Sciences, Graduate School & BK21+ Program in Public Health Sciences, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Ji-Hwan (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Woong-Chul (Department of Dental Laboratory Science and Engineering, College of Health Science, Korea University)
  • Received : 2014.05.29
  • Accepted : 2014.08.14
  • Published : 2014.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digitizing dental impressions of abutment teeth using a white light scanner and to compare the findings among teeth types. MATERIALS AND METHODS. To assess precision, impressions of the canine, premolar, and molar prepared to receive all-ceramic crowns were repeatedly scanned to obtain five sets of 3-D data (STL files). Point clouds were compared and error sizes were measured (n=10 per type). Next, to evaluate trueness, impressions of teeth were rotated by $10^{\circ}-20^{\circ}$ and scanned. The obtained data were compared with the first set of data for precision assessment, and the error sizes were measured (n=5 per type). The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to evaluate precision and trueness among three teeth types, and post-hoc comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. Precision discrepancies for the canine, premolar, and molar were $3.7{\mu}m$, $3.2{\mu}m$, and $7.3{\mu}m$, respectively, indicating the poorest precision for the molar (P<.001). Trueness discrepancies for teeth types were $6.2{\mu}m$, $11.2{\mu}m$, and $21.8{\mu}m$, respectively, indicating the poorest trueness for the molar (P=.007). CONCLUSION. In respect to accuracy the molar showed the largest discrepancies compared with the canine and premolar. Digitizing of dental impressions of abutment teeth using a white light scanner was assessed to be a highly accurate method and provided discrepancy values in a clinically acceptable range. Further study is needed to improve digitizing performance of white light scanning in axial wall.

Keywords

References

  1. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:304-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011
  2. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  3. Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 2009;25:929-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100
  4. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007;35:903-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.08.008
  5. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimensional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.01.003
  6. Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 2009;25:929-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100
  7. Schaefer O, Watts DC, Sigusch BW, Kuepper H, Guentsch A. Marginal and internal fit of pressed lithium disilicate partial crowns in vitro: a three-dimensional analysis of accuracy and reproducibility. Dent Mater 2012;28:320-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.12.008
  8. Chang M, Park SC. Automated scanning of dental impressions. Comput-aided des 2009;41:404-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2009.02.004
  9. Brosky ME, Pesun IJ, Lowder PD, Delong R, Hodges JS. Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:204-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.121240
  10. Khardekar R, Burton G, McMains S. Finding feasible mold parting directions using graphics hardware. Comput-aided des 2006;38:327-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2006.01.008
  11. Priyadarshi AK, Gupta SK. Geometric algorithms for automated design of multi-piece permanent molds. Comput-aided des 2004;36:241-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(03)00107-6
  12. ISO 5725-1:2003. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results? Part 1: General principles and definitions. ISO, Geneva; Swizterland, 2003.
  13. Hoyos A, Soderholm KJ. Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:49-54.
  14. Ziegler M. Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:159-63.
  15. Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 2010;20:243-9.
  16. Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M. Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:158-60.
  17. Alikhasi M, Monzavi A, Bassir SH, Naini RB, Khosronedjad N, Keshavarz S. A comparison of precision of fit, rotational freedom, and torque loss with copy-milled zirconia and prefabricated titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:996-1002. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2937
  18. Webber B, McDonald A, Knowles J. An in vitro study of the compressive load at fracture of Procera AllCeram crowns with varying thickness of veneer porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:154-60. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.85
  19. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007;35:903-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.08.008
  20. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 2005;8:283-94.
  21. Kenyon BJ, Hagge MS, Leknius C, Daniels WC, Weed ST. Dimensional accuracy of 7 die materials. J Prosthodont 2005;14:25-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00007.x
  22. DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko CC, Douglas WH. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res 2003;82:438-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910308200607
  23. Rudolph H, Luthardt RG, Walter MH. Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med 2007;37:579-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2006.05.006
  24. Jeon JH, Lee KT, Kim HY, Kim JH, Kim WC. White light scanner-based repeatability of 3-dimensional digitizing of silicon rubber abutment teeth impressions. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:452-6. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.4.452
  25. Persson M, Andersson M, Bergman B. The accuracy of a high-precision digitizer for CAD/CAM of crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:223-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80127-1
  26. Moldovan O, Luthardt RG, Corcodel N, Rudolph H. Three-dimensional fit of CAD/CAM-made zirconia copings. Dent Mater 2011;27:1273-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.006
  27. Persson AS, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. Computer aided analysis of digitized dental stone replicas by dental CAD/CAM technology. Dent Mater 2008;24:1123-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.01.008

Cited by

  1. Repeatability and reproducibility of individual abutment impression, assessed with a blue light scanner vol.8, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.3.214
  2. Trueness and precision of scanning abutment impressions and stone models according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.335
  3. Comparison of an indirect impression scanning system and two direct intraoral scanning systems in vivo pp.1436-3771, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2679-4
  4. Evaluation of the reproducibility of various abutments using a blue light model scanner vol.10, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.328
  5. 세 가지 방식의 스캐너 종류에 따른 모형 정확도 평가 vol.15, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.17135/jdhs.2015.15.2.226
  6. 백색광과 청색광 스캐너를 이용한 지대치 인상체 스캐닝의 반복재현성 비교 vol.37, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14347/kadt.2015.37.4.213
  7. 치과 캐드캠 ISO평가 기준에 준한 지대치 경석고 모형 및 인상체 스캐닝의 반복측정안정성 비교 평가 vol.39, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.14347/kadt.2017.39.1.1
  8. Evaluation of the fit of zirconia three‐unit fixed partial dentures fabricated by different impression techniques vol.10, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12413
  9. Trueness of CAD/CAM digitization with a desktop scanner - an in vitro study vol.19, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0976-1
  10. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners vol.24, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02995-w
  11. Influence of Applied Liquid-Type Scanning-Aid Material on the Accuracy of the Scanned Image: An In Vitro Experiment vol.13, pp.9, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13092034
  12. Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners vol.29, pp.9, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13202
  13. Quantitative analysis on the wear of monolithic zirconia crowns on antagonist teeth vol.21, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01452-z