Search

The accuracy of intraoral and model scanners has been widely investigated with heterogeneous results, but the impact of the applied diversity of measurement methods on the outcomes remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of methodological factors on the measurement result when comparing full-arch scans.The evaluation referred to a 5M model to analyze whether accuracy measurements are affected by (1) the reference geometry, (2) mesh density of the standard tessellation language (STL) datasets, (3) operator, (4) inspection software, and (5) alignment procedure. STL datasets of full-arch reference models were measured with 29 different combinations of these factors. For each combination, 10 repeated measurements of the intermolar width were performed. Trueness was statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and T-tests, repeatability with Levene tests, and reproducibility with interclass correlation coefficients.Measurement method variations affected the intermolar width by up to 186 µm. The alignment algorithm had a significant effect on the measurement outcome (p = 0.001). Likewise, reference geometry influenced trueness and repeatability significantly (p = 0.001), whereas mesh density affected the repeatability only in some cases. The operator had no impact on the measurement result. The inspection software affected the repeatability but not the trueness.The factors reference geometry and alignment algorithm highly affected the measurement outcome, while the operator, inspection software, and mesh density showed no impact on the trueness of the outcome. Cylindrical reference geometries showed fewer differences than bar-shaped ones and best-fit alignments fewer variations than alignments based on boundary parameters.

Occlusal devices to reduce symptoms of bruxism and temperomandibular disorders can nowadays be manufactured in a digital workflow but studies comparing the accuracy of those occlusal devices are still limited. Therefore, the aim of this investigation was to investigate the accuracy of injection molding compared with four computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) techniques for the manufacturing of occlusal devices. In addition, the number of contact points and retention were evaluated to assess clinical relevance. A conventional workflow consisting of alginate impression, wax-up, and injection molding (IM) and digital workflows including intraoral scanning, digital design, and subtractive manufacturing (SM) or additive manufacturing by using stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), and material jetting (Polyjet) were investigated. Sixteen splints were fabricated with each method. The intaglio surfaces of the splints were laser scanned and superimposed with the reference data sets to analyze the surface deviations. In addition, the number of contact points after repositioning the splints on the reference model was evaluated with occlusal foil. Finally, the retention was measured in a tensile test. One-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey tests were used for statistical analyses (α = .05). IM and SM splints demonstrated the highest manufacturing accuracy without significant differences to each other (P .985). Additive manufactured splints revealed greater deviations with equal results for SLA and Polyjet (P .949) and significantly higher deviations for DLP compared to all other groups (P .002). Comparable retention force was measured for IM, SM, and SLA (P .923), whereas Polyjet splints showed the greatest variability. IM and SM splints presented the most contact points (P = .505). Additive manufactured splints demonstrated fewer contacts without significant difference to each other (P .116). It can be concluded, that there is no difference in manufacturing accuracy, retention, and number of contacts between IM and SM splints. AM splints demonstrated higher, however, clinically acceptable deviations.

Statement of problem Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are based on light-optical imaging methods. However, little is known about whether the ambient light in dental practices influences the accuracy and scanning time of the IOS. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of different illuminations on the accuracy of 4-unit and complete-arch scans of 6 IOSs. In addition, the required scanning time was evaluated. Material and methods A reference structure was attached to the first premolars (P) and second molars (M) in both quadrants (L/R) of a maxillary model. The resulting measured distances were M1-P1, M2-P2, P1-P2, and M1-M2. The investigation included 6 IOSs: TRIOS 3 (TRI), Cerec Omnicam (OC), iTero Element (ITE), CS 3600 (CS), Planmeca Emerald (EME), and GC Aadva (AAD). With each IOS, 17 scans at different illuminances (100, 500, 1000, and 5000 lux) were performed (N = 408). The precision and trueness for all distances were determined, and the scanning time was recorded. For statistical analyses, the Levene tests (precision) and 1-way analysis of variance with the post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference and Games-Howell tests (trueness) were calculated. Results Illuminance significantly influenced the trueness of 4-unit scans for OC, EME, and AAD. TRI, OC, ITE, and CS demonstrated comparable results. AAD (>96 ±22 μm; 1000 lux) and EME (>248 ±88 μm; 500 lux) revealed greater deviations. For complete-arch scans, illuminance did not influence TRI and AAD, but significant variations were detected for ITE, CS, EME, and AAD. The least deviations were achieved with TRI and OC. The scanning time was extended for all IOSs except ITE at more than 500 lux. The shortest scanning times with OC and EME were recorded at 100 lux; with TRI, CS, and AAD at 500 lux; and with ITE at both 100 and 5000 lux. At all illuminances, the fastest scans were obtained with TRI. Conclusions Ambient light was found to influence the accuracy and scanning time of IOSs. This influence varies depending on the device. For 4-unit scans, the effect was not clinically relevant, but for complete-arch scans, accuracy and scanning time can be improved with appropriate lighting.

Statement of problem Reliable studies comparing the accuracy of complete-arch casts from 3D printers are scarce. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy of casts printed by using various extrusion- and photopolymerization-based printers. Material and methods A master file was sent to 5 printer manufacturers and distributors to print 37 identical casts. This file consisted of a standardized data set of a maxillary cast in standard tessellation language (STL) format comprising 5 reference points for the measurement of 3 distances that served as reference for all measurements: intermolar width (IMW), intercanine width (ICW), and dental arch length (AL). The digital measurement of the master file obtained by using a surveying software program (Convince Premium 2012) was used as the control. Two extrusion-based (M2 and Ultimaker 2+) and 3 photopolymerization-based printers (Form 2, Asiga MAX UV, and myrev140) were compared. The casts were measured by using a multisensory coordinate measuring machine (O-Inspect 422). The values were then compared with those of the master file. The Mann-Whitney U test and Levene tests were used to determine significant differences in the trueness and precision (accuracy) of the measured distances. Results The deviations from the master file at all 3 distances for the included printers ranged between 12 μm and 240 μm (trueness), with an interquartile range (IQR) between 17 μm and 388 μm (precision). Asiga MAX UV displayed the highest accuracy, considering all the distances, and Ultimaker 2+ demonstrated comparable accuracy for shorter distances (IMW and ICW). Although myrev140 operated with high precision, it displayed high deviations from the master file. Similarly, although Form 2 exhibited high IQR, it did not deviate significantly from the master file in the longest range (AL). M2 performed consistently. Conclusions Both extrusion-based and photopolymerization-based printers were accurate. In general, inexpensive printers were no less accurate than more expensive ones.

Concepts for digital denture manufacturing are market-available but studies comparing the trueness of such dentures, either milled (MIL) or additive manufactured, compared to injection molded (IM) ones are still limited. Regarding the impact of artificial aging and microwave sterilization on this parameter, no data are available. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to assess the trueness of IM, MIL, and stereolithography (SLA) printed denture bases after manufacturing, hydrothermal cycling, and microwave sterilization. Sixteen edentulous maxillary plaster models were poured using a silicone mold and digitized by means of a desktop scanner. For group IM, 16 denture bases were injection molded using these models. For group MIL and SLA, the denture bases were virtually designed and manufactured referring to the digitized data. A total of 48 samples were scanned 1) after manufacturing, 2) after hydrothermal cycling (5–55 °C, n = 5000), and after 3) three as well as 4) six cycles of microwave sterilization for 6 min each at 640 W. The 3-D surface deviation of the total intaglio surface, the palate, the alveolar ridge, and the border seal region was evaluated on the basis of the root mean square estimation (RMSE) and positive and negative mean deviations with an inspection software. For statistical analysis, ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were performed (α = 0.05). MIL showed the lowest deviations of the total RMSE (P ≤ .006) compared with the scans of the plaster models. In comparison, IM showed increased, mainly positive, deviations (P = .006) at the border seal. SLA presented the highest total RMSE (P = .001) with increased negative deviations, likewise at the border seal. In contrast to SLA (P = .001), no differences between IM and MIL (P = .816) were measured after hydrothermal cycling. Following microwave sterilization, the trueness of SLA was higher compared to IM and MIL (P = .001), with no differences between MIL and IM (P = .153). Distortion of IM and MIL was measured after the 3rd cycle with no further changes observed thereafter (P ≥ .385). It can be concluded, that subtractive manufacturing of denture bases results in the highest trueness, followed by IM and SLA. In contrast to IM and SLA, hydrothermal cycling did not affect MIL. Solely SLA printed denture bases remained dimensionally stable after microwave sterilization.

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.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and time efficiency of an indirect and direct digitalization workflow with that of a three-dimensional (3D) printer in order to identify the most suitable method for orthodontic use.A master model was measured with a coordinate measuring instrument. The distances measured were the intercanine width, the intermolar width, and the dental arch length. Sixty-four scans were taken with each of the desktop scanners R900 and R700 (3Shape), the intraoral scanner TRIOS Color Pod (3Shape), and the Promax 3D Mid cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit (Planmeca). All scans were measured with measuring software. One scan was selected and printed 37 times on the D35 stereolithographic 3D printer (Innovation MediTech). The printed models were measured again using the coordinate measuring instrument.The most accurate results were obtained by the R900. The R700 and the TRIOS intraoral scanner showed comparable results. CBCT-3D-rendering with the Promax 3D Mid CBCT unit revealed significantly higher accuracy with regard to dental casts than dental impressions. 3D printing offered a significantly higher level of deviation than digitalization with desktop scanners or an intraoral scanner. The chairside time required for digital impressions was 27% longer than for conventional impressions.Conventional impressions, model casting, and optional digitization with desktop scanners remains the recommended workflow process. For orthodontic demands, intraoral scanners are a useful alternative for full-arch scans. For prosthodontic use, the scanning scope should be less than one quadrant and three additional teeth.