Accuracy in Intraoral Scanners

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction: Conventional impression techniques have been used in dentistry for a long time. When technological developments in the world of dentistry were added to the various disadvantages of impression materials and methods, these traditional methods began to be abandoned. At the beginning of these technological developments are intraoral scanners and CAD / CAM systems. In order to produce healthy and compatible restorations after measuring with intraoral scanners, the equipment must have some features. At the beginning of these features is 'accuracy'. Material and Method: Studies on intraoral scanners and accuracy were reviewed. This literature review was conducted in computer environment using "Pubmed" and "Google Scholar" databases. Publications that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study and evaluated. Results: Dentists work to provide their patients with more comfortable treatment opportunities, to shorten the time the patient sits in the dentist's chair, and to make more compatible restorations. In this context, the quality of the measurements taken is a very important criterion and the use of intraoral scanners has increased day by day with technological and software developments. In order to get a clear measurement, intraoral scanners must be of high accuracy. Conclusions: Accuracy is the most important feature that the scanner should have in order to get a measurement of the desired quality with intraoral scanners. Dentists need to follow the developments and literature on this subject in order to provide better service to their patients.

Keywords

• Intraoral
• scanner
• accuracy

İntraoral Tarayıcılarda Doğruluk

Abstract

ÖZET Giriş: Konvansiyonel ölçü teknikleri uzun zamandır diş hekimliği alanında kullanılmaktadır. Ölçü maddelerinin ve yöntemlerinin çeşitli dezavantajlarının üzerine, diş hekimliği dünyasındaki teknolojik gelişmeler de eklenince bu geleneksel yöntemler terk edilmeye başlanmıştır. Bu teknolojik gelişmelerin başında intraoral tarayıcılar ve CAD/CAM sistemleri gelmektedir. İntraoral tarayıcılarla ölçü alındıktan sonra sağlıklı ve uyumlu restorasyonlar üretilebilmesi için ekipmanların bazı özellikleri barındırması gerekmektedir. Bu özelliklerin başında ‘doğruluk (accuracy)’ gelmektedir. Materyal ve Metod: İntraoral tarayıcılar ve doğruluk ile ilgili çalışmalar incelenmiştir. Bu literatür incelemesi bilgisayar ortamında ‘’Pubmed’’ ve ‘’Google Scholar’’ veritabanları kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Araştırmaya dahil edilme kriterlerine uygun yayınlar çalışma kapsamına alınmış ve değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Diş hekimleri hastalarına daha konforlu tedavi olanakları sunmak, hastanın diş hekimi koltuğunda oturduğu süreyi kısaltmak ve daha uyumlu restorasyonlar yapabilmek için çalışmaktadırlar. Bu bağlamda alınan ölçülerin kalitesi çok önemli bir kriterdir ve teknolojik ve yazılımsal gelişmelerle birlikte intraoral tarayıcıların kullanımı günden güne artmıştır. Net bir ölçü alınabilmesi için intraoral tarayıcıların yüksek doğruluk seviyesinde olması gerekmektedir. Sonuçlar: İntraoral tarayıcılar ile istenilen kalitede bir ölçü alınabilmesi için, tarayıcının barındırması gereken en önemli özellik doğruluktur. Diş hekimlerinin, hastalarına daha iyi hizmet verebilmek için bu konudaki gelişmeleri ve literatürü takip etmeleri gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• İntraoral
• tarayıcı
• doğruluk

References

1. 1. Chen LC, Xu Z. Innovative 3D dental measurement for tooth model restoration. Paper presented at: Key Engineering Materials2005.
2. 2. Hong-Seok P, Chintal SJPE. Development of high speed and high accuracy 3D dental intra oral scanner. 2015;100:1174-1181.
3. 3. Duret FJCP. Toward a new symbolism in the fabrication of prosthetic design. 1985;13:65-71.
4. 4. KARAALİOĞLU AGDOF, DUYMUŞ ZYJAüdhfd. Diş hekimliğinde uygulanan CAD/CAM sistemleri. 2008;2008(1):25-32.
5. 5. Feuerstein PJTJotADA. Can technology help dentists deliver better patient care? 2004;135:11S-16S.
6. 6. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki YJDmj. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. 2009;28(1):44-56.
7. 7. Liu P-R, Essig MEJCoceid. Panorama of dental CAD/CAM restorative systems. 2008;29(8):482, 484, 486-488 passim.
8. 8. BAKIÇ H, KOCACIKLI M, KORKMAZ TJAÜDHFD. DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİNDE GÜNCEL İNTRAORAL TARAYICILAR.31(2):289-304.

9. 9. Alghazzawi TFJJopr. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. 2016;60(2):72-84.
10. 10. Baheti M, Soni U, Gharat N, et al. Intra-oral scanners: a new eye in dentistry. 2015;2(3):1023.
11. 11. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann W, Reich SJIjocd. Intraoral scanning systems-a current overview. 2015;18(2):101-129.
12. 12. Joda T, Brägger UJCOIR. Patient‐centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. 2016;27(12):e185-e189.
13. 13. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir HJBoh. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. 2014;14(1):1-7.
14. 14. Means CR, Flenniken IEJTJopd. Gagging—a problem in prosthetic dentistry. 1970;23(6):614-620.
15. 15. Rosted P, Bundgaard M, Fiske J, Pedersen AJBdj. The use of acupuncture in controlling the gag reflex in patients requiring an upper alginate impression: an audit. 2006;201(11):721-725.
16. 16. Christensen GJJJADA. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions. 2008;139(6):761-763.
17. 17. Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj CJTJopd. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. 2017;118(3):386-391.
18. 18. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari MJEjoo. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. 2016;38(4):422-428.
19. 19. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo SJBoh. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. 2017;17(1):1-11.
20. 20. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FGJBoh. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. 2017;17(1):1-13.
21. 21. Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att WJTJotADA. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. 2014;145(6):542-551.
22. 22. Luqmani S, Jones A, Andiappan M, Cobourne MTJAJoO, Orthopedics D. A comparison of conventional vs automated digital Peer Assessment Rating scoring using the Carestream 3600 scanner and CS Model+ software system: A randomized controlled trial. 2020;157(2):148-155. e141.
23. 23. Fournier G, Savall F, Galibourg A, Gély L, Telmon N, Maret DJFsi. Three-dimensional analysis of bitemarks: A validation study using an intraoral scanner. 2020;309:110198.
24. 24. Londono J, Abreu A, Baker PS, Furness ARJTJopd. Fabrication of a definitive obturator from a 3D cast with a chairside digital scanner for a patient with severe gag reflex: a clinical report. 2015;114(5):735-738.
25. 25. Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa JJDC. Dental impression materials and techniques. 2017;61(4):779-796.
26. 26. Matsuda T, Kurahashi K, Maeda N, Goto T, Ichikawa TJJopr. Geometric assessment of imaging methods for complete denture form: Comparisons among cone-beam computed tomography, desktop dental scanning, and handheld optical scanning. 2020;64(4):485-489.
27. 27. Agnini A, Agnini A, Coachman C. Digital dental revolution: The learning curve. Quintessenza Edizioni; 2015.
28. 28. Lee SJ, MacArthur IV RX, Gallucci GOJTJopd. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. 2013;110(5):420-423.
29. 29. Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando DJEjoo. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. 2016;38(4):429-434.
30. 30. Lawson NC, Burgess JOJCoceid. Clinicians reaping benefits of new concepts in impressioning. 2015;36(2):152-153.
31. 31. Ting‐shu S, Jian SJJoP. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. 2015;24(4):313-321.
32. 32. Ahmed KE, Wang T, Li KY, Luk WK, Burrow MFJJopr. Performance and perception of dental students using three intraoral CAD/CAM scanners for full-arch scanning. 2019;63(2):167-172.
33. 33. AKARSLAN ZZJAÜDHFD. GAG REFLEX IN DENTISTRY: WHAT CAN WE DO? 2016;26(3):503-510.
34. 34. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor FJCoi. Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression—a split-mouth randomised clinical study. 2019;23(11):4043-4050.
35. 35. Abduo J, Bennamoun M, Tennant M, McGeachie JJCib, medicine. Effect of prosthodontic planning on intercuspal occlusal contacts: Comparison of digital and conventional planning. 2015;60:143-150.
36. 36. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl AJIJCD. Accuracy of complete-and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. 2019;22(1):11-19.
37. 37. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, et al. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. 2020;32(2):204-218.
38. 38. Mejía JBC, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani HJTJopd. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. 2017;118(3):392-399.
39. 39. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta UJJoP. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. 2018;27(1):35-41.
40. 40. Muir J, Calvert EJBdj. Vomiting during the taking of dental impressions. Two case reports of the use of psychological techniques. 1988;165(4):139-141.
41. 41. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MSJTJopd. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. 2015;114(3):403-406. e401.
42. 42. Muallaha J, Wesemannb C, Nowakc R, et al. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral and extraoral scanners: an in vitro study using a new method of evaluation Genauigkeit von Ganzkieferscans mit intraoralen und extraoralen Scannern: eine In-vitro-Untersuchung. 2017;20(2):151-164.
43. 43. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. 2017;118(1):36-42.
44. 44. Wesemann C, Muallah J, Mah J, Bumann AJQI. Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. 2017;48(1).
45. 45. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl AJTJopd. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. 2016;115(3):313-320.
46. 46. Ender A, Mehl AJQI. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. 2015;46(1).
47. 47. Frigerio F. 3-dimensional surface imaging using active wavefront sampling, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2006.
48. 48. Samet N, Shohat M, Livny A, Weiss EIJTJopd. A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. 2005;94(2):112-117.
49. 49. Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin TJIjocd. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. 2009;12(1):11-28.
50. 50. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser JJJod. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. 2010;38(7):553-559.
51. 51. Bindl A, Mörmann WJJoor. Marginal and internal fit of all‐ceramic CAD/CAM crown‐copings on chamfer preparations. 2005;32(6):441-447.
52. 52. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies GJCoi. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. 2016;20(4):799-806.
53. 53. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, et al. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. 2014;23(8):610-617.