• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.9 no.7
• /
• pp.135-140
• /
• 2018

This study aimed to determine the changes of awareness and preference of dental hygienists according to the experience of using a digital intraoral scanner through a convergence study. Data collected by an online survey for dental hygienists in Busan, Gyeongnam and Gyeongbuk were analyzed by SPSS 24.0 program. When dental hygienists had an experience of using a digital intraoral scanner, the awareness and preference of digital intraoral scanners were significantly higher. The experience of using a digital intraoral scanner showed a positive correlation with the clinical application experience of digital intraoral scanners; the clinical application experience of digital intraoral scanners, with the awareness of digital intraoral scanners; and the awareness of digital intraoral scanners, with the preference of digital intraoral scanners. In conclusion, the dental hygienist's experience in clinical application of digital intraoral scanners is expected to increase the awareness and preference, resulting in the improvement of dental hygienists' work ability. Therefore, it is believed that continuous education and learning about digital oral scanners are needed.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.10 no.1
• /
• pp.58-64
• /
• 2018

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to design an intraoral environment simulator and to assess the accuracy of two intraoral scanners using the simulator. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A box-shaped intraoral environment simulator was designed to simulate two specific intraoral environments. The cast was scanned 10 times by Identica Blue (MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea), TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), and CS3500 (Carestream Dental, Georgia, USA) scanners in the two simulated groups. The distances between the left and right canines (D3), first molars (D6), second molars (D7), and the left canine and left second molar (D37) were measured. The distance data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS. The differences in intraoral environments were not statistically significant (P>.05). Between intraoral scanners, statistically significant differences (P<.05) were revealed by the Kruskal-Wallis test with regard to D3 and D6. CONCLUSION. No difference due to the intraoral environment was revealed. The simulator will contribute to the higher accuracy of intraoral scanners in the future.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.6
• /
• pp.315-332
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. This study aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of intraoral scanners is influenced by different scanning strategies in an in vitro setting, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 standard. The following PICOS approach was used: population, tooth impressions; intervention, the use of intraoral scanners with scanning strategies different from the manufacturer's instructions; control, the use of intraoral scanners following the manufacturers' requirements; outcome, accuracy of intraoral scanners; type of studies, in vitro. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases including Embase, SciELO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were based on in vitro studies that reported the accuracy of digital impressions using intraoral scanners. Analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3.5; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Global comparisons were made using a standardized mean difference based on random-effect models, with a significance level of α = 0.05. RESULTS. The meta-analysis included 15 articles. Digital impression accuracy significantly improved under dry conditions (P < 0.001). Moreover, trueness and precision were enhanced when artificial landmarks were used (P ≤ 0.02) and when an S-shaped pattern was followed (P ≤ 0.01). However, the type of light used did not have a significant impact on the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanners (P ≥ 0.16). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of digital intraoral scanners can be enhanced by employing scanning processes using artificial landmarks and digital impressions under dry conditions.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.51 no.2
• /
• pp.95-104
• /
• 2021

Objective: To evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch scans acquired using five intraoral scanners and investigate the factors associated with the dimensional accuracy of the intraoral scan data. Methods: Nine adult participants (mean age, 34.3 ± 8.3 years) were recruited. Four zirconium spheres (Ø 6 mm) were bonded to the canines and the molars. Following acquisition of reference scans using an industrial-grade scanner, five intraoral scanners, namely i500, CS3600, Trios 3, iTero, and CEREC Omnicam, were used to scan the arches. Linear distances between the four reference spheres were automatically calculated, and linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare the trueness and precision of the intraoral scan data among the different scanners. Results: The absolute mean trueness and precision values for all intraoral scanners were 76.6 ± 79.3 and 56.6 ± 52.4 ㎛, respectively. The type of scanner and the measured linear distances had significant effects on the accuracy of the intraoral scan data. With regard to trueness, errors in the intermolar dimension and the distance from the canine to the contralateral molar were greater with Omnicam than with the other scanners. With regard to precision, the error in the linear distance from the canine to the molar in the same quadrant was greater with Omnicam and CS3600 than with the other scanners. Conclusions: The dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.6
• /
• pp.373-384
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. This study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations that were designed by using the data obtained with the aid of intraoral and laboratory scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. For the fabrication of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations using impressions taken from the maxillary master cast, plaster cast was created and scanned in laboratory scanners (InEos X5 and D900L). The main cast was also scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam [OMNI], Primescan [PS], Trios 3 [T3], Trios 4 [T4]) (n = 12 per group). Zirconia fixed partial dentures were virtually designed, produced from presintered block, and subsequently sintered. Marginal and internal discrepancy values (in ㎛) were measured by using silicone replica method under stereomicroscope. Data were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests (P<.05). RESULTS. In terms of marginal adaptation, the measurements on the canine tooth indicated better performance with intraoral scanners than those in laboratory scanners, but there was no difference among intraoral scanners (P<.05). In the premolar tooth, PS had the lowest marginal (86.9 ± 19.2 ㎛) and axial (92.4 ± 14.8 ㎛), and T4 had the lowest axio-occlusal (89.4 ± 15.6 ㎛) and occlusal (89.1 ± 13.9 ㎛) discrepancy value. In both canine and premolar teeth, the D900L was found to be the most marginally and internally inconsistent scanner. CONCLUSION. Within the limits of the study, marginal and internal discrepancy values were generally lower in intraoral scanners than in laboratory scanners. Marginal discrepancy values of scanners were clinically acceptable (< 120 ㎛), except D900L.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.6
• /
• pp.388-398
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 14 different intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four implants were placed in regions 13, 16, 23, and 26 of an edentulous maxillary model that was poured with scannable Type 4 gypsum to imitate the All-on-4 concept. The cast was scanned 10 times for each of 14 intraoral scanners (Primescan, iTero 2, iTero 5D, Virtuo Vivo, Trios 3, Trios 4, CS3600, CS3700, Emerald, Emerald S, Medit i500, BenQ BIS-I, Heron IOS, and Aadva IOS 100P) after the polyether ether ketone scanbody was placed. For the control group, the gypsum model was scanned 10 times with an industrial scanner. The first of the 10 virtual models obtained from the industrial model was chosen as the reference model. For trueness, the data of the 14 dental scanners were superimposed with the reference model; for precision, the data of all 14 scanners were superimposed within the groups. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilks, and Dunn's tests. RESULTS. Primescan showed the highest trueness and precision values (P < .005), followed by the iTero 5D scanner (P < .005). CONCLUSION. Some of these digital scanners can be used to make impressions within the All-on-4 concept. However, the possibility of data loss due to artifacts, reflections, and the inability to combine the data should be considered.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.53 no.4
• /
• pp.254-263
• /
• 2023

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.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.12 no.6
• /
• pp.361-368
• /
• 2020

PURPOSE. The present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a desktop scanner and intraoral scanners based on the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Seven reference models were fabricated based on the volumetric dimensions of complete arch (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%, 120%, and 130%). The reference models were digitized using an industrial scanner (Solutionix C500; MEDIT) for the fabrication of a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). The reference models were digitized using three intraoral scanners (CS3600, Trios3, and i500) and one desktop scanner (E1) to fabricate a CAD test model (CTM). CRM and CTM were then superimposed using inspection software, and 3D analysis was conducted. For statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance was used to verify the difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch and the accuracy based on the scanners, and the differences among the groups were analyzed using the Tukey HSD test as a post-hoc test (α=.05). RESULTS. The three different scanners showed a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P<.05), but the desktop scanner did not show a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P=.808). CONCLUSION. The accuracy of the intraoral scanners was dependent on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch, but the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch had no effect on the accuracy of the desktop scanner. Additionally, depending on the type of intraoral scanners, the accuracy differed according to the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.8 no.5
• /
• pp.354-362
• /
• 2016

PURPOSE. The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS. The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups. CONCLUSION. Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.221-230
• /
• 2015

Recently, traditional impression has been rapidly replaced by digital impression using intraoral scanning. There are more than 7 types of intraoral scanners available in the dental market. It is difficult to make effective strategic choices due to a lack of standards and guidelines for optimal intraoral scanning devices. So far, little has been reported about evaluating the ergonomic aspect of these scanners. This literature review compares current intraoral scanning systems based on different types of handles and suggests the most comfortable, user-friendly intraoral scanners from an ergonomic standpoint.