Scanning
Volume 2019 (2019), Article ID 1289570, 6 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1289570

Research Article

Trueness and Precision of Two Intraoral Scanners: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Raul Nicolae Rotar,¹ Anca Jivanescu,¹ Codruta Ille,¹ Angela Codruta Podariu,² Daniela Elisabeta Jumanca,² Ana-Maria Matichescu,² Octavia Balean,² and Laura Cristina Rusu³

¹Department of Prosthodontics, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, Timisoara, B-dul Revolutiei 1989, No 9, 300580, Romania
²Department of Preventive Dentistry, Community and Oral Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, Timisoara, Splaiul Tudor Vladimirescu, nr.14 A, 300174, Romania
³Department of Oral Pathology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Victor Babes”, Timisoara, Splaiul Tudor Vladimirescu, nr.14 A, 300174, Romania

Correspondence should be addressed to Anca Jivanescu; ajivanescu@yahoo.com

Received 8 August 2019; Accepted 24 September 2019; Published 21 October 2019

Academic Editor: Andrea Picone

Copyright © 2019 Raul Nicolae Rotar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners used in the dental office. A molar fixed in a typodont was prepared for a ceramic onlay. The preparation was scanned using a high-resolution scanner (reference scanner) and saved as stereolithography (STL) format. The prepared resin molar was scanned again using the intraoral scanners, and all the scans were saved as well in STL format. All STL files were compared using metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Overlapping the meshes allowed the assessment of the scans in terms of trueness and precision. Based on the results of this study, the differences of trueness and precision between the intraoral scanners were minimal.

1. Introduction

Digital impressions are getting more and more importance in the dental office, leading to an increase in the number of intraoral scanners available on the market [1–5], and as a result, many clinicians may have second thoughts when choosing the most suitable intraoral system for their work [2, 6].

The main advantages that these systems provide over the conventional impression are the comfort for the patient, time efficiency, and also the reduced costs [7, 8]. Also, the possibility of immediate control of the impression and basically “indestructible” 3D models that can be stored indefinitely add up to the scale in favor of digital impression procedures [9–11].

The way a scanner works is by measuring the reflection times of a surface and based on an algorithm it “attaches” the images that it records. Even if the digital impression procedure is not very complicated, the working algorithm is complex [1]. The scanner’s software generates point clouds and meshes that reconstruct the scanned surface using a powerful processing software that allows for high-quality 3D models [12, 13].

A number of studies have shown that intraoral scanners are a reliable way of recording tooth preparations whether they are single crowns, inlays, onlays, implants [14–16], or fixed partial dentures [17–19].

When comparing digital impression accuracy, there are two aspects that are taken into consideration: trueness and precision. These variables are independent and do not reflect the same thing [13, 14]. Trueness shows how similar is a measurement to the value of the measured quantity. On the other hand, precision shows how much similar are repeated measurements, in other words the reproducibility of the impression [13–15]. As a result, the ideal intraoral scanner should have high trueness and also high precision.

The most common way of measuring the accuracy or either conventional or digital impressions is by comparing a reference scan, usually obtained by scanning a physical model with a desktop or an industrial scanner, and the resulting STL file is then compared with the test scan groups [20–24].

Due to the fact that there is no standardized method of scanning and the acquisition techniques for the IOS differ from one system to another, the analysis of the resulting meshes may prove difficult [21, 25].

A precise fit is extremely important when referring to long-lasting dental restorations. As a result, the impression process becomes a key step in determining the success of a treatment. A precise impression allows for a clear identification of the finish line which translates into a suitable emergence profile [26–29].

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of two intraoral scanners on an onlay preparation and to assess if there are any major discrepancies between the qualities of the final digital impressions.

2. Material and Methods

Two intraoral scanners Planmeca PlanScan (E4D Technologies, LLC, Richardson, TX, USA) and CEREC Omnicam (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and a high-resolution desktop scanner D700 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) were used in this study.

The Planmeca PlanScan works under the principle of optical coherence tomography and confocal microscopy. It is a powder-free scanner with a blue light real-time laser video streaming technology. It has tips of various dimensions with built-in heated mirrors. Planmeca PlanScan is an open system, since it allows conversion of the acquired proprietary files into STL files, readable by all CAD systems. It can be easily connected to a laptop via a USB port and has a proprietary milling machine available for the fabrication of full in-office digital restorations such as inlays, onlays, crowns, bridges, and veneers.

CEREC Omnicam is a structured light scanner that uses a white LED, and it works under the principle of optical triangulation and confocal microscopy. It is fast, it does not require powder, and it offers true color information. The tip is not too big; therefore, it is easier to scan the posterior areas. The digital workflow can take place directly at the chairside, using the proprietary CAD software, or via the cloud-based platform. CEREC Omnicam is also an open system allowing transformation of proprietary files into STL files, usable from any CAD system. The CAD/CAM system of Sirona allows the design and milling of prosthetic restorations and frameworks (inlays, onlays, veneers, crowns, bridges, and bars).

D700 is a desktop scanner that uses two cameras with reduced angle that allows the scanning of deep preparations and undercuts. It has a high accuracy (<20 microns) and is material color independent.

A standard resin upper first molar was prepared for a ceramic onlay. Next, the model was digitized using a desktop scanner (D700, 3Shape) in order to obtain a reference model. First, the prepared tooth was removed from the typodont and scanned individually followed by another scan with the adjacent teeth that later served in the alignment process. The 3-axis motion system facilitated easy object placement allowing the object to be tilted, rotated, and translated so as to be scanned from any viewpoint, making 3-axis the optimal number of axis for a scanning volume corresponding to a dental model. In the final processing step, the point cloud obtained from all views was converted into a 3D surface of fine triangles and the resulting data saved as a STL file (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Reference model.

The same prepared molar was scanned ten times using two high-end intraoral scanners. The first five scans were taken with the scanner from Planmeca PlanScan and the rest up to ten with the Omnicam from CEREC. A specific scanning pattern was followed for all the scans starting from the mesial part of the occlusal surface of the preparation and then transitioning to the palatal surface followed by the distal part of the occlusal surface and in the end the transition to the buccal side of the prepared tooth, all in a continuous motion. All files were saved in STL format as well and used later on for a comparison in terms of trueness and precision (Figure 2).

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: Intraoral scans with PlanScan (b) and Omnicam (a).

Trueness values were obtained by superimposing the STL files from the test groups with the STL file from the reference scan. Overlapping the STL files within each group generated the precision values. Two random scans from each intraoral system were chosen and compared with all the other meshes from within each group. All scanning data and computations were performed using metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Using reverse engineering, the STL files were uploaded into the program and the models were trimmed, and only the prepared tooth data was analyzed. The STL file from the desktop scanner was set as the reference. The 3D models from the intraoral scanners were superimposed in the beginning using a rough “initial alignment” followed by a “best fit algorithm” that determined the final overlapping of the meshes (Figure 3). The resulting color map of the analyzed meshes was set between ±50 μm. The distances between different planes were color-coded, and the overall color map was generated based on these deviations.

Figure 3: Alignment process of the meshes.

For each set of scans, the mean and standard deviation values were calculated. The blue color indicated the inward displacement, and the red color showed the outward position of the mesh compared to the reference while the green color showed the absence of change (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Color map of the deviation on the interest area.

Statistical analysis was preformed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to assess data distribution.

Overall trueness and precision of the scanners were analyzed and compared, and the statistical significance was calculated using the paired -test.

3. Results

The trueness and precision values of the two intraoral scanners for the onlay preparation are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1: Trueness values (μm) of the intraoral scanners ( value = 0.2).

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5

Planmeca PlanScan
43 μm
53 μm
46 μm
53 μm
48 μm
 μm

CEREC Omnicam
54 μm
53 μm
46 μm
50 μm
62 μm
 μm

Table 2: Precision values (μm) of the intraoral scanners ( value = 0.08).

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7

Planmeca PlanScan
28 μm
25 μm
21 μm
28 μm
22 μm
27 μm
23 μm

CEREC Omnicam
31 μm
31 μm
55 μm
21 μm
39 μm
28 μm
44 μm
 μm

The mean trueness value of  μm showed that the PlanScan scans had the best overall results. Regarding the precision of the two intraoral scanners, PlanScan also showed better results with a mean value of  μm.

The values for both trueness and precision were >0.05, indicating that there was no difference between the scanners.

The single best results for trueness and precision (visual color map representation) obtained with each device are presented in Figures 5–8.

Figure 5: Color map of the PlanScan trueness deviation values around the interest area.

Figure 6: Color map of the Omnicam trueness deviation values around the interest area.

Figure 7: Color map of the PlanScan precision deviation values around the interest area.

Figure 8: Color map of the Omnicam precision deviation values around the interest area.

4. Discussions

Clinical practice in dentistry is changing at an incredible pace due to the developments that take place in the software (computer assisted design) and hardware (milling machines and scanning tips) fields [1, 3, 5]. Optical impressions enhance the workflow in the dental office that leads to more predictable results, allowing for real-time adjustments of the impressions and when needed corrections of the prepared tooth areas [3, 9].

With so many intraoral scanners available on the market, little is known about the accuracy (trueness and precision) of these devices [10, 12]. A number of studies have shown that even if intraoral scanners are a reliable way of recording tooth preparations, it is not clear if they can completely replace the conventional impression in all treatment plans [15–17].

Nedelcu et al. assessed the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and concluded that these devices should be used only in particular scenarios that include smaller prosthetic treatments [21].

Similar conclusions were drawn by Schaefer et al. who measured the marginal fit of partial ceramic crowns and showed that even if the marginal gap distances were acceptable, there were important differences between the scanning systems [30].

Andriessen et al. also measured and compared the accuracy of three intraoral scanners for 3 implants on an edentulous ridge. The conclusion of the study was that the errors are directly proportional with the size of the scanned surface [15].

Our study has a number of limitations. Being an in vitro study, aspects that can influence the final accuracy of the digital impression such as humidity, saliva, blood, patient’s movements, or the space for the scanning tip were not taken into consideration.

As a result, the observations of this study may be subject to change as the developing companies are investing more and more for the improvement of the data acquisition of these intraoral scanning systems.

5. Conclusions

This study compared the trueness and precision of two intraoral scanners in the scenario of an onlay on a complete dentate arch. The accuracy deviations of the analyzed scanners were consistent and with no major differences between them. Even if there were some deviations in visual inspection of the meshes, there was no statistical significance between the two intraoral scanners. More in vivo and in vitro studies are necessary for a clear validation of these results.

Data Availability

All data is available upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

S. Ting-shu and S. Jian, “Intraoral digital impression technique: a review,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 313–321, 2015.

M. Zimmermann, A. Mehl, W. H. Mörmann, and S. Reich, “Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview,” International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 101–129, 2015.

W. H. Moörmann, “The evolution of the CEREC system,” The Journal of the American Dental Association, vol. 137, pp. 7S–13S, 2006.

W. H. Mörmann and A. Bindl, “The Cerec 3--a quantum leap for computer-aided restorations: initial clinical results,” Quintessence International, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 699–712, 2000.

W. Renne, M. Ludlow, J. Fryml et al., “Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 36–42, 2017.

S. Logozzo, E. M. Zanetti, G. Franceschini, A. Kilpela, and A. Makynen, “Recent advances in dental optics - part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry,” Optics and Lasers in Engineering, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 203–221, 2014.

E. Yuzbasioglu, H. Kurt, R. Turunc, and H. Bilir, “Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes,” BMC Oral Health, vol. 14, no. 1, 2014.

U. Schepke, H. J. A. Meijer, W. Kerdijk, and M. S. Cune, “Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 403–406.e1, 2015.

S. B. M. Patzelt, C. Lamprinos, S. Stampf, and W. Att, “The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study,” Journal of the American Dental Association, vol. 145, no. 6, pp. 542–551, 2014.

T. Grünheid, S. D. McCarthy, and B. E. Larson, “Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 146, no. 5, pp. 673–682, 2014.

M. L. C. Aragón, L. F. Pontes, L. M. Bichara, C. Flores-Mir, and D. Normando, “Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review,” The European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 429–434, 2016.

B. Gjelvold, B. R. Chrcanovic, E. K. Korduner, I. Collin-Bagewitz, and J. Kisch, “Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 282–287, 2016.

C. Goracci, L. Franchi, A. Vichi, and M. Ferrari, “Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence,” The European Journal of Orthodontics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 422–428, 2016.

J.-F. Güth, D. Edelhoff, J. Schweiger, and C. Keul, “A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 1487–1494, 2016.

F. S. Andriessen, D. R. Rijkens, W. J. van der Meer, and D. W. Wismeijer, “Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 186–194, 2014.

F. G. Mangano, G. Veronesi, U. Hauschild, E. Mijiritsky, and C. Mangano, “Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 9, article e0163107, 2016.

J. Ng, D. Ruse, and C. Wyatt, “A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 555–560, 2014.

K. Ueda, F. Beuer, M. Stimmelmayr, K. Erdelt, C. Keul, and J. F. Guth, “Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 283–289, 2016.

T. Abdel-Azim, K. Rogers, E. Elathamna, A. Zandinejad, M. Metz, and D. Morton, “Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 114, no. 4, pp. 554–559, 2015.

F. Mangano, A. Gandolfi, G. Luongo, and S. Logozzo, “Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature,” BMC Oral Health, vol. 17, no. 1, article 442, 2017.

R. Nedelcu, P. Olsson, I. Nyström, J. Rydén, and A. Thor, “Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo analysis method,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 69, pp. 110–118, 2018.

A. Ender and A. Mehl, “Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 121–128, 2013.

A. S. K. Persson, A. Odén, M. Andersson, and G. Sandborgh-Englund, “Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness,” Dental Materials, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 929–936, 2009.

A. Mehl, A. Ender, W. Mörmann, and T. Attin, “Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera,” International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 11–28, 2009.

J. J. Lee, I. I. D. Jeong, J. Y. Park, J. H. Jeon, J. H. Kim, and W. C. Kim, “Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 253–259, 2017.

A. Keeling, J. Wu, and M. Ferrari, “Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 59, pp. 33–40, 2017.

P. Svanborg, H. Skjerven, P. Carlsson, A. Eliasson, S. Karlsson, and A. Örtorp, “Marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses generated from digital and conventional impressions,” International Journal of Dentistry, vol. 2014, Article ID 534382, 9 pages, 2014.

E. Anadioti, S. A. Aquilino, D. G. Gratton et al., “3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions,” Journal of Prosthodontics, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 610–617, 2014.

P. Tsirogiannis, D. R. Reissmann, and G. Heydecke, “Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 116, no. 3, pp. 328–335.e2, 2016.

O. Schaefer, M. Decker, F. Wittstock, H. Kuepper, and A. Guentsch, “Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 677–683, 2014.