Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.
Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Feb; 24(2):735-745.CO

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Comparison of full-arch digital impressions to conventional impressions in vitro and in vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A straight metal bar was fixed between the second upper molars as a reference structure in the mouth of a voluntary patient and a corresponding polymer model. The following digitalization methods were applied: (1) the maxilla was digitized in vivo 12 times with the iTero Element (P-SCAN); (2) the maxilla was captured in vivo 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (P-IMP); (3) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (P-CAST); (4) the polymer model was digitized in vitro 12 times with the iTero Element (M-SCAN); (5) the polymer model was captured in vitro 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (M-IMP); (6) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (M-CAST). Datasets were exported and metrically analyzed (Geomagic Control X) to determine three-dimensional length aberration and angular distortion versus the reference structure. Mann-Whitney U test was implemented to detect differences (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

For multiple accuracy parameters, P-SCAN and M-SCAN showed similar or superior results compared to the other digitalization methods. The following length deviations were found: M-SCAN (- 55 to 80 μm), M-IMP (110 to 329 μm), M-CAST (88 to 178 μm), P-SCAN (- 67 to 76 μm), P-IMP (125-320 μm), and P-CAST (92-285 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the iTero-scan seems to be a valid alternative to conventional impressions for full arches.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Intraoral scanners are more and more used in daily routine; however, little is known about their accuracy when it comes to full-arch scans. Under optimum conditions, the direct digitalization using the iTero Element intraoral scanning device results in the same and for single parameters (arch width and arch distortion) even in higher accuracy than the indirect digitalization of the impression or the gypsum cast using a desktop scanner.

Links

Publisher Full Text (DOI)

Authors+Show Affiliations

Keul C
Department of Prosthodontics, LMU Munich, Goethestraβe 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. Christine.keul@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Güth JF
Department of Prosthodontics, LMU Munich, Goethestraβe 70, 80336, Munich, Germany.

MeSH

Computer-Aided DesignDental ArchDental Impression MaterialsDental Impression TechniqueHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalModels, Dental

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

31134345

Citation

Keul, Christine, and Jan-Frederik Güth. "Accuracy of Full-arch Digital Impressions: an in Vitro and in Vivo Comparison." Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 24, no. 2, 2020, pp. 735-745.
Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):735-745.
Keul, C., & Güth, J. F. (2020). Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clinical Oral Investigations, 24(2), 735-745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2
Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of Full-arch Digital Impressions: an in Vitro and in Vivo Comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):735-745. PubMed PMID: 31134345.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. AU - Keul,Christine, AU - Güth,Jan-Frederik, Y1 - 2019/05/27/ PY - 2019/01/11/received PY - 2019/05/16/accepted PY - 2019/5/28/pubmed PY - 2020/2/28/medline PY - 2019/5/29/entrez KW - Accuracy KW - Digital impression KW - Full-arch impression KW - Metrology analysis KW - iTero Element SP - 735 EP - 745 JF - Clinical oral investigations JO - Clin Oral Investig VL - 24 IS - 2 N2 - OBJECTIVES: Comparison of full-arch digital impressions to conventional impressions in vitro and in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A straight metal bar was fixed between the second upper molars as a reference structure in the mouth of a voluntary patient and a corresponding polymer model. The following digitalization methods were applied: (1) the maxilla was digitized in vivo 12 times with the iTero Element (P-SCAN); (2) the maxilla was captured in vivo 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (P-IMP); (3) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (P-CAST); (4) the polymer model was digitized in vitro 12 times with the iTero Element (M-SCAN); (5) the polymer model was captured in vitro 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (M-IMP); (6) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (M-CAST). Datasets were exported and metrically analyzed (Geomagic Control X) to determine three-dimensional length aberration and angular distortion versus the reference structure. Mann-Whitney U test was implemented to detect differences (p < 0.05). RESULTS: For multiple accuracy parameters, P-SCAN and M-SCAN showed similar or superior results compared to the other digitalization methods. The following length deviations were found: M-SCAN (- 55 to 80 μm), M-IMP (110 to 329 μm), M-CAST (88 to 178 μm), P-SCAN (- 67 to 76 μm), P-IMP (125-320 μm), and P-CAST (92-285 μm). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, the iTero-scan seems to be a valid alternative to conventional impressions for full arches. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoral scanners are more and more used in daily routine; however, little is known about their accuracy when it comes to full-arch scans. Under optimum conditions, the direct digitalization using the iTero Element intraoral scanning device results in the same and for single parameters (arch width and arch distortion) even in higher accuracy than the indirect digitalization of the impression or the gypsum cast using a desktop scanner. SN - 1436-3771 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/31134345/Accuracy_of_full_arch_digital_impressions:_an_in_vitro_and_in_vivo_comparison_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -