The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A novel method for testing accuracy of bite registration using intraoral scanners

  • Lydia Kakali (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) ;
  • Demetrios J. Halazonetis (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens)
  • Received : 2022.09.13
  • Accepted : 2023.06.20
  • Published : 2023.07.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The evidence on the accuracy of bite registration using intraoral scanners is sparse. This study aimed to develop a new method for evaluating bite registration accuracy using intraoral scanners. Methods: Two different types of models were used; 10 stone models and 10 with acrylic resin teeth. A triangular frame with cylindrical posts at each apex (one anterior and two posteriors) was digitally designed and manufactured using three-dimensional (3D) printing. Such a structure was fitted in the lingual space of each maxillary and mandibular model so that, in occlusion, the posts would contact their opposing counterparts, enforcing a small interocclusal gap between the two arches. This ensured no tooth interference and full contact between opposing posts. Bite registration accuracy was evaluated by measuring the distance between opposing posts, with small values indicating high-accuracy. Three intraoral scanners were used: Medit i500, Primescan, and Trios 4. Viewbox software was used to measure the distance between opposing posts and compute roll and pitch. Results: The average maximum error in interocclusal registration exceeded 50 ㎛. Roll and pitch orientation errors ranged above 0.1 degrees, implying an additional interocclusal error of around 40 ㎛ or more. The models with acrylic teeth exhibited higher errors. Conclusions: A method that avoids the need for reference hardware and the imprecision of locating reference points on tooth surfaces, and offers simplicity in the assessment of bite registration with an intraoral scanner, was developed. These results suggest that intraoral scanners may exhibit clinically significant errors in reproducing the interocclusal relationships.

Keywords

References

  1. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
  2. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26:101-21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29989757/
  3. Kachhara S, Nallaswamy D, Ganapathy DM, Sivaswamy V, Rajaraman V. Assessment of intraoral scanning technology for multiple implant impressions- a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20:141-52. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_379_19
  4. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for fullarch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:422-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077
  5. Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:161-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029
  6. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527
  7. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - part 1: general principles and definitions [Internet]. Geneva: ISO; 1994 [cited 2022 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/11833.html.
  8. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018;69:110-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006
  9. Winkler J, Gkantidis N. Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis. Sci Rep 2020;10:1172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58075-7
  10. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  11. Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent 2016;55:68-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002
  12. Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias DL, Wyatt CCL. The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:904-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.024
  13. Ayuso-Montero R, Mariano-Hernandez Y, KhouryRibas L, Rovira-Lastra B, Willaert E, Martinez-Gomis J. Reliability and validity of T-scan and 3D intraoral scanning for measuring the occlusal contact area. J Prosthodont 2020;29:19-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13096
  14. Gintaute A, Keeling AJ, Osnes CA, Zitzmann NU, Ferrari M, Joda T. Precision of maxillo-mandibular registration with intraoral scanners in vitro. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:114-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.05.006
  15. Park JM, Jeon J, Heo SJ. Accuracy comparison of buccal bite scans by five intra-oral scanners. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2018;34:17-31. https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2018.34.1.17
  16. Wong KY, Esguerra RJ, Chia VAP, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems. J Prosthodont 2018;27:120-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12714
  17. Botsford KP, Frazier MC, Ghoneima AAM, Utreja A, Bhamidipalli SS, Stewart KT. Precision of the virtual occlusal record. Angle Orthod 2019;89:751-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/092018-684.1
  18. Abdulateef S, Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias DL, Wyatt CCL. Clinical accuracy and reproducibility of virtual interocclusal records. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:667-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.014
  19. Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: a laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.008
  20. Song J, Kim M. Accuracy on scanned images of full arch models with orthodontic brackets by various intraoral scanners in the presence of artificial saliva. Biomed Res Int 2020;2020:2920804. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2920804
  21. Ryan EA, Tam LE, McComb D. Comparative translucency of esthetic composite resin restorative materials. J Can Dent Assoc 2010;76:a84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20719098/
  22. Nogueira AD, Della Bona A. The effect of a coupling medium on color and translucency of CAD-CAM ceramics. J Dent 2013;41 Suppl 3:e18-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.02.005
  23. Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2035-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1440-5
  24. Im J, Cha JY, Lee KJ, Yu HS, Hwang CJ. Comparison of virtual and manual tooth setups with digital and plaster models in extraction cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;145:434-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.014
  25. Hildebrand JC, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Sivik M, Hans M. Evaluation of a software program for applying the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system to digital casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:283-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.035
  26. Costalos PA, Sarraf K, Cangialosi TJ, Efstratiadis S. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital model analysis for the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system for dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:624-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.017
  27. Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S. Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:51-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.042
  28. Besl PJ, McKay ND. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 1992;14:239-56. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.121791
  29. Rajbhoj AA, Parchake P, Begnoni G, Willems G, Cadenas de Llano-Perula M. Dental changes in humans with untreated normal occlusion throughout lifetime: a systematic scoping review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2021;160:340-62.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.02.014
  30. Iwaki Y, Wakabayashi N, Igarashi Y. Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations. Oper Dent 2013;38:309-15. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-233-L
  31. Resnik RR, Misch CE. Misch's avoiding complications in oral implantology. St. Louis: Mosby; 2018.
  32. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x
  33. Owens S, Buschang PH, Throckmorton GS, Palmer L, English J. Masticatory performance and areas of occlusal contact and near contact in subjects with normal occlusion and malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:602-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.122829
  34. Sakaguchi RL, Anderson GC, DeLong R. Digital imaging of occlusal contacts in the intercuspal position. J Prosthodont 1994;3:193-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.1994.tb00154.x