18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of the Accuracy of Four Digital Methods by Linear and Volumetric Analysis of Dental Impressions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The quality of dental arch impression has a substantial role in the precision of the intervention. It is traditionally acquired with resins that solidify when in contact with the air. Compared to that method, digital impression gives great advantages and, together with three-dimensional (3D) digitization devices, allows a simplification of the digital impression process. The growing adoption of such systems by a large number of dental clinics determines the need for an in-depth evaluation of the accuracy and the precision of the different systems. The aim of this work is to define a methodology for the evaluation of the accuracy and precision of 3D intraoral and desktop scanning systems, by using volumetric and linear methods. The replica of a tooth was realized with zirconium; afterward, high-accuracy point clouds of the master model were acquired by a coordinate measurement machine (CMM). In this way, the dimensions of the replica were accurately known. An intraoral scanner (I) and three desktops (D1, D2, D3) were then used to scan the replica. The geometry resulting from the CMM was compared with the ones derived from the scanners, using two different commercial programs (Geomagic and 3-Matic) and a custom-developed algorithm (MATLAB). Geomagic showed the mean values to be in a range from 0.0286 mm (D1) to 0.1654 mm (I), while 3-Matic showed mean values from −0.0396 mm (D1) to 0.1303 mm (I). MATLAB results ranged from 0.00014 mm (D1) to 0.00049 mm (D2). The probability distributions of the volumetric error of the measurements obtained with the different scanners allow a direct comparison of their performances. For the results given by our study, the volumetric approach that we adopted appears to be an excellent system of analysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.

          Digital impression devices are used alternatively to conventional impression techniques and materials. The aims of this study were to evaluate the precision of digital intraoral scanning under clinical conditions (iTero; Align Technologies, San Jose, Calif) and to compare it with the precision of extraoral digitization.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes

            Background The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort. Methods Twenty-four (12 male, 12 female) subjects who had no previous experience with either conventional or digital impression participated in this study. Conventional impressions of maxillary and mandibular dental arches were taken with a polyether impression material (Impregum, 3 M ESPE), and bite registrations were made with polysiloxane bite registration material (Futar D, Kettenbach). Two weeks later, digital impressions and bite scans were performed using an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Immediately after the impressions were made, the subjects’ attitudes, preferences and perceptions towards impression techniques were evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. The perceived source of stress was evaluated using the State-Trait Anxiety Scale. Processing steps of the impression techniques (tray selection, working time etc.) were recorded in seconds. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon Rank test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results There were significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05) in terms of total working time and processing steps. Patients stated that digital impressions were more comfortable than conventional techniques. Conclusions Digital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.

              Digital impression systems have undergone significant development in recent years, but few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo, particularly compared with conventional impression techniques.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Materials (Basel)
                Materials (Basel)
                materials
                Materials
                MDPI
                1996-1944
                18 June 2019
                June 2019
                : 12
                : 12
                : 1958
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biomedical and Surgical Sciences, Odontostomatological University Centre, University of Perugia, 06128 Perugia, Italy; stefano.pagano@ 123456unipg.it (S.P.); misure@ 123456unipg.it (G.B.); stefano.cianetti@ 123456unipg.it (S.C.)
                [2 ]Department of Engineering, University of Perugia, via G. Duranti, 93 06128 Perugia, Italy; michele.moretti@ 123456unipg.it
                [3 ]3DIFIC, 06128 Perugia, Italy; alessandro.ricci@ 123456edific.it
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1532-0413
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9364-5873
                Article
                materials-12-01958
                10.3390/ma12121958
                6631156
                31216639
                df696b8c-cbc4-4e60-a891-e526b7487681
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 12 April 2019
                : 13 June 2019
                Categories
                Article

                intraoral scanners,volumetric error distribution,point cloud registration

                Comments

                Comment on this article