DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİNDE GÜNCEL İNTRAORAL TARAYICILAR

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 31 Sayı: 2, 289 - 304, 15.04.2021

Halil Bakıç Mustafa Kocacıklı Turan Korkmaz

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.713422

Cited By: 1

Öz

İntraoral tarayıcılar dental uygulamalarda birçok tedavi için gün geçtikçe daha fazla tercih edilmektedir. Gelişen teknolojilerle birlikte yeni tarama teknolojileri ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca birçok dental intraoral tarayıcı hızla piyasaya sürülmektedir. Tarayıcıların pahalı olması ve bir araya getirilip karşılaştırılması kolay değildir. Bu nedenle yayınlanan herhangi iki makalede kullanılan intraoral tarayıcıların standardize edilip karşılaştırılması da zordur.
Bu derlemenin amacı hem yeni üretilen hem de halen kullanılmakta olan cihazlar hakkında kullanıcıları bilgilendirip, literatürde karşılaştırılması yapılan tarayıcıların kendi aralarında doğruluk değerlerini belirleyip sonuçlarından bahsetmektir. Bu nedenle araştırmacıya; bilgisayar destekli üretim ve tasarım hakkında kısaca bilgi verilip, intraoral tarayıcıların avantajları ve dezavantajları ile birlikte tarayıcı teknolojileri ve yöntemlerinden bahsedilmiştir. Ayrıca doğruluk terminolojisi ve tarayıcıların dijital kayıt biçimleri açıklanmıştır. Daha sonra piyasada sıklıkla kullanılan intraoral tarayıcıların özellikleri hakkında bilgiler verilmiştir . Son olarak “ISO 5725-1” standartlarına göre makaleler belirlenmiştir. Bu bilgiler doğrultusunda tarayıcılar taradıkları mesafeler temel alınarak hem kendi aralarında hem de geleneksel ölçüler ile karşılaştırılması yapılıp, aralarındaki doğruluk derecesi hakkında kısaca bilgi verilmeye çalışılmıştır. Elde edilen bütün sonuçlar ve bilgiler tabloya dönüştürülmüştür.
Sonuç olarak intraoral kameraların ilerleyen teknolojilerle ölçü kalitesinin artığı gözlemlendi. Hali hazırda kullanılan geleneksel yöntemlerin bazı anatomik yapılarda ve geniş bölgelerin kaydının alınmasında daha başarılı olduğu, ancak tek ve kısa mesafeli ölçülerde ayrıntıları belirlemede intraoral kameralara göre yetersiz oldukları belirlendi.
Anahtar kelimeler: İntraoral tarayıcılar, dijital diş hekimliği, bilgisayar destekli tasarım, tarama teknikleri, ölçü yöntemleri

CURRENT INTRAORAL SCANNER IN DENTİSTRY
Abstract
Intraoral scanners are becoming more preferred for dental treatment in many applications in day by day. Along with the developing technologies, new scanning technologies have emerged. In addition, many dental intraoral scanners are being released rapidly. These scanner are expensive and difficult to put together and compare. It is also difficult to standardize and compare intraoral scanners used in any two published articles.
The aim of this review is to inform the users about the devices that are newly produced and still in use, by the way, the accuracy values of the scanners are compared in the literature before and to talk about the results. Therefore, brief advice about computer-aided manufacturing and design is given together with the advantages and disadvantages of intraoral scanners, as well as scanner technologies and methods. In addition, accuracy terminology and digital recording formats of scanners are explained by in this review. Then, information is given about the features of intraoral scanners which are frequently used in the market. Subsequently, articles have been determined according to “ISO 5725-1” standards. In line with this information, scanners were compared both with themselves and with traditional measures based on the distance they scanned, and brief information was provided about the degree of accuracy between them. All the results and information obtained have been transformed into a table.
As a result, it has been observed that intraoral cameras increase the quality of measurement with advancing technologies. The traditional methods currently used are more successfully in some anatomical structures and impression of large areas, but they are inadequate then intraoral scanner to determine details in single and short distance measurements.
Keywords: Intraoral scanners; digital dentistry; computer-aided design; scanning methods; impression methods

Anahtar Kelimeler

İntraoral tarayıcılar, dijital diş hekimliği, bilgisayar destekli tasarım, tarama teknikleri

Kaynakça

• 1. Karaalioğlu OF, Duymuş ZY. Diş hekimliğinde uygulanan CAD/CAM sistemleri. Atatürk Üniv. Diş. Hek. Fak. Derg. 2008; 25-32.
• 2. Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. Dental impression materials and techniques. Dental Clinics. 2017; 61: 779-96.
• 3. Memari Y, Mohajerfar M, Armin A, Kamalian F, Rezayani V, Beyabanaki E. Marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM all‐ceramic crowns made by different impression methods: A literature review. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 536-44.
• 4. Sfondrini MF, Gandini P, Malfatto M, Di Corato F, Trovati F, Scribante A. Computerized casts for orthodontic purpose using powder-free intraoral scanners: Accuracy, execution time, and patient feedback. Biomed Res. Int. 2018; 2018.
• 5. Luqmani S, Jones A, Andiappan M, Cobourne MT. 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. Am J Orthod Dentofac. 2020; 157: 148-55.
• 6. Fournier G, Savall F, Galibourg A, Gély L, Telmon N, Maret D. Three-dimensional analysis of bitemarks: A validation study using an intraoral scanner. Forensic Sci. Int. 2020: 110198.
• 7. Londono J, Abreu A, Baker PS, Furness AR. Fabrication of a definitive obturator from a 3d cast with a chairside digital scanner for a patient with severe gag reflex: A clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2015; 114: 735-38.
• 8. Hu F, Pei Z, Wen Y. Using intraoral scanning technology for three‐dimensional printing of kennedy class i removable partial denture metal framework: A clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 473-76.
• 9. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann W, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems-a current overview. International journal of computerized dentistry. 2015; 18: 101-29.
• 10. Rubel BS. Impression materials: A comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dental Clinics of North America. 2007; 51: 629-42.
• 11. Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in cad/cam technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont research. 2016; 60: 72-84.
• 12. Ren S, Morton D, Lin W-S. Accuracy of virtual interocclusal records for partially edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent. 2019.
• 13. Radu M, Radu D, Abboud M. Digital recording of a conventionally determined centric relation: A technique using an intraoral scanner. J Prosthet Dent. 2019.
• 14. Matsuda T, Kurahashi K, Maeda N, Goto T, Ichikawa T. Geometric assessment of imaging methods for complete denture form: Comparisons among cone-beam computed tomography, desktop dental scanning, and handheld optical scanning. J Prosthodont research. 2020.
• 15. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC oral health. 2017; 17: 149.
• 16. Ahmed KE, Wang T, Li KY, Luk WK, Burrow MF. Performance and perception of dental students using three intraoral CAD/CAM scanners for full-arch scanning. J Prosthodont research. 2019; 63: 167-72.
• 17. Patel N. Integrating three-dimensional digital technologies for comprehensive implant dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010; 14: 20-4.
• 18. Akarslan ZZ. Gag reflex in dentistry: What can we do? Atatürk Üniv. Diş. Hek. Fak. Derg. 2016; 26: 503-10.
• 19. Prudente MS, Davi LR, Nabbout KO, Prado CJ, Pereira LM, Zancopé K, ve ark. Influence of scanner, powder application, and adjustments on cad-cam crown misfit. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 377-83.
• 20. Bhajibhakare D, Yeshwante B, Baig N, Jadhav V, Gorde K, Vaidya P. Intraoral scanner: A new era of digital dentistry. Int J Sci Res. 2019; 8.
• 21. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression—a split-mouth randomised clinical study. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23: 4043-50.
• 22. Ting‐shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015; 24: 313-21.
• 23. Abduo J, Bennamoun M, Tennant M, McGeachie J. Effect of prosthodontic planning on intercuspal occlusal contacts: Comparison of digital and conventional planning. Comput Bıol Med. 2015; 60: 143-50.
• 24. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22: 11-19.
• 25. Keul C, Güth J-F. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: An in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 1-11.
• 26. Park G-H, Son K, Lee K-B. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 803-10.
• 27. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: A comparative in vitro study. BMC oral health. 2019; 19: 101.
• 28. Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3‐dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 902-08.
• 29. Braian M, Wennerberg A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;
• 30. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41.
• 31. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Culp A. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019.
• 32. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics–part I: 3d intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Laser Eng. 2014; 54: 203-21.
• 33. Atieh MA. Accuracy evaluation of intra-oral optical impressions: A novel approach: UNCCH. 2016.
• 34. Bibb R, Eggbeer D, Paterson A. 5 - case studies. In: Bibb R, Eggbeer D, Paterson A, editors. Medical modelling (second edition). Oxford: Woodhead Publishing; 2015; 99-472.
• 35. Pradíes G, Ferreiroa A, Özcan M, Giménez B, Martínez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145: 338-44.
• 36. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P. Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017; 2017.
• 37. Trissel RG. Polarizing multiplexer and methods for intra-oral scanning. USPTO. Patent no: 7,312,924. 2007.
• 38. Ten Bosch J. General aspects of optical methods in dentistry. J Adv Dent Res. 1987; 1: 5-7.
• 39. Geng J. Structured-light 3d surface imaging: A tutorial. Adv Opt Photonıcs. 2011; 3: 130-33.
• 40. Zimmermann M. Intraoral scanning systems: Purchase decisions and system overview. Magyar Fogorvos. 2017; 2017: 6-14.
• 41. Kim RJ-Y, Park J-M, Shim J-S. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 895-903.
• 42. ISO I. 5725-3: 1994, accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results-part 3: Intermediate measures of the precision of a standard measurement method. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva. 1994.
• 43. Pavese F, editor Iso 5725: 1994. European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics pre-Conference Workshop on” Measuring Uncertainty in the GUM (VIM) vs ISO.
• 44. Pissiotis AL. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 545-551.
• 45. 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.
• 46. Rudolph H, Quaas S, Luthardt R. Matching point clouds: Limits and possibilities. Int J Comput Dent. 2002; 5: 155-64.
• 47. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Max Impl. 2014; 29.
• 48. Kassis ADC. Cad/cam technology: A review. Computer-aided design (CAD). 1980; 2.
• 49. Skramstad M. Welcome to cerec primescan ac. Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22: 69-78.
• 50. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps I. Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 811-20.
• 51. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: An in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC oral health. 2018; 18: 27.
• 52. 3Shape. 3shape trios 4 intraoral scanner wins cellerant “best of class” award: 3shape A/S Denmark; 2019. kaynak: https://www.3shape.com/en/press/2019/3shape-trios-4-intraoral-scanner-wins-cellerant-best-of-class-award.
• 53. Institute of Digital Dentistry. Review of the intraoral scanners at ids 2019; 19.
• 54. Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Caponi M, Governi L, Blois L. A comparative analysis of intraoral 3d digital scanners for restorative dentistry. J Med Technol. 2011; 5: 1-18.
• 55. Park J-M, Shim J-S. Optical impression in restorative dentistry. Int J Comput Vis. 2019.
• 56. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Culp A. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020; 32: 204-218.
• 57. Kim RJ-Y, Benic GI, Park J-M. Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position. PloS one. 2019; 14: 11.
• 58. CHANG ML, Soo B, JANG KJ, Medit Corp. Three-dimensional oral scanner. WO. Patent no: WO2019212245A1. 2019.
• 59. Wong, V, Fan C. 3-D Scanner Calibration with Active Display Target Device. USPTO. Patent no: 16/060,853. 2019.
• 60. Wong VC, Milch JR. Dental shade mapping. USPTO. Patent no: 8,208,704. 2012.
• 61. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 2027-34.
• 62. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 581-86.
• 63. Planmeca Oy (Finland). Technical specifications. Kaynak: https://www.planmeca.com/cadcam/dentalscanning/ planmeca-emerald-s/ technical-specifications/ . 2019.
• 64. Rotar RN, Jivanescu A, Ille C, Podariu AC, Jumanca DE, Matichescu A-M. Trueness and precision of two intraoral scanners: A comparative in vitro study. Scanning. 2019; 2019.
• 65. Planmeca Oy (Finland). Accurate intraoral scanner for chairside cad/cam. Kaynak: https://www.planmeca.com/cadcam/dental-scanning/planmeca-planscan/technical-specifications/. 2019;
• 66. Oskari V. Kavo x pro™: N dfs-analyysi. 2019;
• 67. Wu Q, Bin H, Gong X, Li J, Jianpang Z. Intra-oral scanner for digital impression and real-time reconstruction system for inner surface topographic image of oral cavity. USPTO. Patent no: 9,149,348. 2015.
• 68. Yun Z, Stegall DB, Scott SD, Graham IJL, Sevcik PA. 3d image capture apparatus with depth of field extension. USPTO. Patent no: 9,967,543. 2017.
• 69. Hack GDP, Sebastian Berthold Maximilian. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: An in-vitro investigation: Collaboratıve Evaluatıon. J Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 10.
• 70. Osnes C, Wu J, Venezia P, Ferrari M, Keeling A. Full arch precision of six intraoral scanners in vitro. J prosthodont. 2020; 64: 6-11.
• 71. Sawase T, Kuroshıma S. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2020; 2019-285.
• 72. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42.
• 73. Junaid Malik B, RCSE M, Rodriguez J. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;
• 74. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: A three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac. 2017; 32.
• 75. Kim KR, Seo K-y, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 543-549.
• 76. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-21.
• 77. Chandran Sk, Jaını J, Babu As, Mathew A, Keepanasserıl A. Digital versus conventional impressions in dentistry: A systematic review. JCDR. 2019; 13.
• 78. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020, 123 :85-95.
• 79. Arnold C, Hey J, SchweyenR, Setz JM. Accuracy of cad-cam-fabricated removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 586-92.
• 80. Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC oral health. 2018; 18: 117.
• 81. Ammoun R, Suprono MS, Goodacre CJ, Oyoyo U, Carrico CK, Kattadiyil MT. 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. J Prosthodont. 2020.
• 82. Marghalani A, Weber H-P, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 574-79.
• 83. Park HN, Lim YJ, Yi WJ, Han JS, Lee SP. A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10: 58-64.
• 84. Park JM, Kim JY, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 2020, 123: 113-120
• 85. Huang MY, Son K, Lee WS, Lee KB. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanner by three-dimensional analysis in single and 3-unit bridge abutment model: In vitro study. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2019; 57: 102-09.
• 86. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont. 2019.
• 87. Wu J, Li Y, Zhang Y. Use of intraoral scanning and 3-dimensional printing in the fabrication of a removable partial denture for a patient with limited mouth opening. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148: 338-41.
• 88. Lanis A, Alvarez CO, Barriga P, Polido WD, Morton D. Computer-guided implant surgery and full-arch immediate loading with prefabricated—metal framework—provisional prosthesis created from a 3d printed model. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; 31: 199-208.
• 89. Tregerman I, Renne W, Kelly A, Wilson D. Evaluation of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated using 3 different techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 390-395.
• 90. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental cad/cam: Current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009; 28: 44-56.
• 91. Mino T, Maekawa K, Ueda A, Higuchi S, Sejima J, Takeuchi T. In silico comparison of the reproducibility of full-arch implant provisional restorations to final restoration between a 3d scan/cad/cam technique and the conventional method. J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 59: 152-58.
• 92. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, Van WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 186-94.
• 93. Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ. Using intraoral scanning to capture complete denture impressions, tooth positions, and centric relation records. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31.
• 94. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin‐Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont. 2016; 25: 282-87.
• 95. Fang JH, An X, Jeong SM, Choi BH. Digital intraoral scanning technique for edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 733-35.
• 96. Kamimura E, Tanaka S, Takaba M, Tachi K, Baba K. In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques. PloS one. 2017; 12.
• 97. Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ. Using intraoral scanning to fabricate complete dentures: First experiences. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31.
• 98. D'Arienzo LF, D’Arienzo A, Borracchini A. Comparison of the suitability of intra-oral scanning with conventional impression of edentulous maxilla in vivo. A preliminary study. J Osseointegration. 2018; 10: 115-20.
• 99. Sasada Y, Huynh-Ba G, Funakoshi E. Transferring subgingival contours around implants and the intaglio surface of the pontic to definitive digital casts by using an intraoral scanner: A technique. J Prosthet Dent; 2020, 123: 210-214.
• 100. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC oral health. 2017; 17: 92.
• 101. Kim RJ, Benic GI, Park JM. Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position. bioRxiv. 2019: 744995.
• 102. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 648-53.
• 103. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J. Prosthodont Res. 2019.
• 104. Bohner LOL, Canto GDL, Marció BS, Laganá DC, Sesma N, Neto PT. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 617-23.
• 105. Wei D, Di P, Tian J, Zhao Y, Lin Y. Evaluation of intraoral digital impressions for obtaining gingival contour in the esthetic zone: Accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Investig. 2019: 1-10.
• 106. 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.
• 107. Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 400-05.
• 108. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-32.