Influence of Tooth Preparation Design and Scan Angulations on the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Digital Scanners: An in Vitro Study Based on 3‐Dimensional Comparisons
- 29 January 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Prosthodontics
- Vol. 29 (3) , 201-206
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence of adjacent teeth.Materials and Methods: Eight different complete coverage (CC) and partial coverage (PC) tooth preparations were scanned by two IOS, the 3Shape TRIOS (TRI) and the 3M True Definition (TRU). All teeth preparations were scanned in the presence and absence of adjacent teeth. Four groups were established for each IOS; Group 1: PC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 2: CC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 3: PC preparations without adjacent teeth. Group 4: CC preparations without adjacent teeth. 3D analysis was performed to examine average absolute discrepancy (AAD) and maximum absolute discrepancy (MAD). A Two‐way ANOVA was performed followed by a post‐hoc Tukey's test HSD to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth, preparation design, and the type of IOS used.Results: For TRI, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 20 ± 1.8 µm, 19.6 ± 2.4 µm, 15.5 ± 2.7 µm, and 12.9 ± 1.4 µm, respectively, whereas MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 109.7 ± 13.5 µm, 93.2 ± 28.9 µm, 85.6 ± 16.1 µm, and 66 ± 20.1 µm, respectively. For TRU IOS, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 22.0 ± 3.6 µm, 17.9 ± 2 µm, 20 ± 5.9 µm, and 14.9 ± 1.7 µm, respectively, whereas the MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 151.4 ± 38.4 µm, 92.2 ± 17. µm, 92.6 ± 23.6 µm, and 71.4 ± 11.9 µm, respectively. Two‐way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences between the AAD and MAD of TRI and TRU (p< 0.001). There were also statistically significant differences for presence or absence of adjacent teeth (p< 0.001), and preparation design (p< 0.001).Conclusions: PC preparation scans revealed lower accuracy than CC. The presence of adjacent teeth decreased the accuracy of both IOS. TRI gave higher accuracy than TRU for PC, but both IOS showed comparable accuracy for CC groups.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning directionThe Korean Journal of Orthodontics, 2016
- Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical TrialJournal of Prosthodontics, 2015
- Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patientsClinical Oral Investigations, 2015
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precisionThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2013
- Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflowClinical Oral Investigations, 2012
- Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorationsThe Journal of the American Dental Association, 2006
- Marginal Adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM Composite Crowns Using Two Different Finish Line Preparation DesignsJournal of Prosthodontics, 2006
- Clinical and SEM evaluation of all‐ceramic chair‐side CAD/CAM‐generated partial crownsEuropean Journal of Oral Sciences, 2003
- Tooth preparations for complete crowns: An art form based on scientific principlesThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2001
- Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic reviewDental Materials, 1999