Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations 5/2017

12.07.2016 | Original Article

Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization

verfasst von: Jan-Frederik Güth, Cornelius Runkel, Florian Beuer, Michael Stimmelmayr, Daniel Edelhoff, Christine Keul

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 5/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Direct and indirect digitalization offer two options for computer-aided design (CAD)/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-generated restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners and compare them to the process of indirect digitalization.

Material and method

A titanium testing model was directly digitized 12 times with each intraoral scanner: (1) CS 3500 (CS), (2) Zfx Intrascan (ZFX), (3) CEREC AC Bluecam (BLU), (4) CEREC AC Omnicam (OC) and (5) True Definition (TD). As control, 12 polyether impressions were taken and the referring plaster casts were digitized indirectly with the D-810 laboratory scanner (CON). The accuracy (trueness/precision) of the datasets was evaluated by an analysing software (Geomagic Qualify 12.1) using a “best fit alignment” of the datasets with a highly accurate reference dataset of the testing model, received from industrial computed tomography.

Results

Direct digitalization using the TD showed the significant highest overall “trueness”, followed by CS. Both performed better than CON. BLU, ZFX and OC showed higher differences from the reference dataset than CON. Regarding the overall “precision”, the CS 3500 intraoral scanner and the True Definition showed the best performance. CON, BLU and OC resulted in significantly higher precision than ZFX did.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the ascertained datasets was dependent on the scanning system. The direct digitalization was not superior to indirect digitalization for all tested systems.

Clinical relevance

Regarding the accuracy, all tested intraoral scanning technologies seem to be able to reproduce a single quadrant within clinical acceptable accuracy. However, differences were detected between the tested systems.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Rubel BS (2007) Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 51:629–642 viCrossRefPubMed Rubel BS (2007) Impression materials: a comparative review of impression materials most commonly used in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 51:629–642 viCrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Christensen GJ (2005) The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136:343–346CrossRefPubMed Christensen GJ (2005) The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc 136:343–346CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763CrossRefPubMed Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMed Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Henkel GL (2007) A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent 28:422–424 426-428, 430-421PubMed Henkel GL (2007) A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent 28:422–424 426-428, 430-421PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559CrossRefPubMed Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109:121–128CrossRefPubMed Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109:121–128CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16:11–21PubMed Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16:11–21PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMed Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Almeida E, Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. (2014) Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 18:515–523CrossRef Almeida E, Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. (2014) Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 18:515–523CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B (2013) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17:1759–1764CrossRefPubMed Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B (2013) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17:1759–1764CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 1: general principles and definitions (ISO 5725–1:1994) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 1: general principles and definitions (ISO 5725–1:1994)
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30:400–407CrossRefPubMed Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30:400–407CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17:1201–1208CrossRefPubMed Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17:1201–1208CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14:11–21PubMed Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14:11–21PubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Ender A, Mehl A (2015) In-Vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 46:9–17PubMed Ender A, Mehl A (2015) In-Vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 46:9–17PubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Nedelcu RG, Persson AS (2014) Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 112:1461–1471CrossRefPubMed Nedelcu RG, Persson AS (2014) Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 112:1461–1471CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF (2015) Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF (2015) Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig
Metadaten
Titel
Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization
verfasst von
Jan-Frederik Güth
Cornelius Runkel
Florian Beuer
Michael Stimmelmayr
Daniel Edelhoff
Christine Keul
Publikationsdatum
12.07.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2017

Clinical Oral Investigations 5/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.