RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch scans using 11 different cast scanners. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Dental arch length (AL), intermolar width (IMW), and intercanine width (ICW) of the reference plaster casts were measured using a coordinate measuring machine (Zeiss O-Inspect 422). The master cast was subsequently scanned 37 times using 11 desktop scanners (3Shape R500, 3Shape R700, 3Shape R1000, 3Shape R2000, Medianetx grande, Medianetx colori, DentaCore CS ULTRA, Dentaurum OrthoX, Maestro 3D, Imetric IScan D104i, GC Aadva Lab Scan). Using the software Convince Premium 2012 (3Shape), AL, IMW, and ICW were measured on the digital models and compared to the reference plaster cast. RESULTS: The accuracy of the cast scanners differed significantly. The most accurate measurements were given by the cast scanners 3Shape R700 (ICW: 7.4?±?5.9?µm) and Imetric IScan D104i (ICW: 9.1?±?4.9?µm). The cast scanners 3Shape R1000 (ICW: 11.2?±?3.4?µm) and GC Aadva Lab Scan (ICW: 13.8?±?8.1?µm) yielded comparable measurements. DentaCore (ICW: 26.6?±?7.5?µm) and Dentaurum OrthoX (ICW: 31.1?±?24?µm) were significantly less accurate. CONCLUSION: Almost all scanners demonstrated a level of accuracy so high that further improvement would not provide additional benefit for use in orthodontics. Advancement of the scanners should focus primarily on reducing time and cost. For prosthodontic use, the scanners with the highest accuracy are recommended.

RESUMEN

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of six intraoral scanners as regards clinically relevant distances using a new method of evaluation. An additional objective was to compare intraoral scanners with the indirect digitization of model scanners. A resin master model was created by 3D printing and drilled in five places to reflect the following distances: intermolar width (IMW), intercanine width (ICW), and arch length (AL). To determine a gold standard, the distances were measured with a coordinate measuring instrument (Zeiss O-Inspect 422). The master model was scanned 37 times with the following intraoral scanners: Apollo DI (Sirona), CS 3500 (Carestream Dental), iTero (Cadent), PlanScan (Planmeca), Trios (3Shape), and True Definition (3M Espe), and indirectly digitized with the OrthoX Scan (Dentaurum). The digital models were then measured, and deviations from the gold standard calculated. Significant differences were found between the devices. Among the intraoral scanners, Trios and iTero showed the most accurate results, although CS 3500, True Definition, and Apollo DI achieved comparable results. PlanScan demonstrated the highest deviations from the gold standard, and presented a high standard deviation (SD). Direct digitization revealed comparable (and, in fact, slightly higher) accuracy than indirect digitization. Both indirect digitization and most of the intraoral scanners were therefore demonstrated to be suitable for use in the orthodontic office, with the exception of PlanScan, which did not meet the demands of individual orthodontic treatment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Plaster casts can be digitized with desktop scanners, intraoral scanners, and recently also with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of five different CBCT devices digitizing a plaster cast. A study cast serving as a patient was made using the double mix impression technique, and the impression was poured out with plaster. On the resulting plaster cast, arch length (AL), intermolar width (IMW), and intercanine width (ICW) were measured by a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) (Zeiss O-Inspect 422). The patient cast was then scanned by five CBCT devices - CS 9300, CS 9300 Select, CS 8100 3D (all Carestream), Promax 3D Mid (Planmeca), and Whitefox (Acteon) - in eight scan modes. For each CBCT device, 37 scans were performed. The resulting DICOM data were exported as stereolithographic (STL) data and linearly measured using Convince Premium 2012 (3Shape) software. All measurements were compared to the reference master values of the patient cast. The accuracy measurements showed significant differences among the CBCT devices. The highest accuracy was achieved by Whitefox (IMW: mean ± standard deviation (SD): 5.5 ± 5.7 µm) and CS 9300 (IMW: -15 ± 7.4 µm). Comparable results with less accuracy were shown by CS 8100 3D (IMW: -81.2 ± 7.4 µm) and CS 300 Select (IMW: -82.2 ± 6.6 µm). Significantly lower accuracy was shown by Promax 3D Mid (IMW: -126.1 ± 4.8 µm). Some CBCT devices are suitable for the digitization of plaster casts and show very good clinical accuracy. Dental offices equipped with CBCT devices could digitize plaster casts without the need for additional devices.

Asunto(s)