Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: An in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2016, Pages

  Zhang, Fan ^a   Suh, Kyung Jin ^a   Lee, Kyung Min ^a  

^a Chonnam National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DENTAL DEVICE; DENTAL RADIOLOGY; HUMAN; IN VIVO STUDY; INTRAORAL SCAN; INTRAORAL SCANNER; LASER; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; PLASTER DENTAL MODEL; TOOTH; VALIDITY; DENTAL CASTING; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DENTAL PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; IMAGE PROCESSING; ODONTOMETRY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOOTH ARCH; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY;

DENTAL ARCH; DENTAL CASTING TECHNIQUE; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL MODELS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; ODONTOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84975894171     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157713     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17:1759-1764. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4 PMID: 23086333
2. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112:1461-1471. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027 PMID: 25134995
3. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry IL, Thomas GW, et al. Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 113:304-309. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.015 PMID: 25488521
4. Tamim H, Skjerven H, Ekfeldt A, Rønold HJ. Clinical evaluation of CAD/CAM metal-ceramic posterior crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions. Int J Prosthodont 2014; 27:331-337. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3607 PMID: 25010876
5. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111:186-194. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010 PMID: 24210732
6. Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent 2015; 43:201-208. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.007 PMID: 25527248
7. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015 Feb 20. [Epub ahead of print]
8. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012; 7:e43312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043312 PMID: 22937030
9. Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17:1201-1208. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0 PMID: 22847854
10. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29:853-862. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3343 PMID: 25032765
11. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17 Suppl 1:e54-e64. doi: 10.1111/cid.12124 PMID: 23879869
12. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 Feb 13.
13. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Güth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2015 Jun 30. [Epub ahead of print]
14. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011; 14:11-21. PMID: 21657122
15. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109:121-128. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 PMID: 23395338
16. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013; 16:11-21. PMID: 23641661
17. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013; 144:914-920. PMID: 23904578
18. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing-generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Asso 2014; 145:1133-1140.
19. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18:1687-1694. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y PMID: 24240949
20. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015; 46:9-17. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a32244 PMID: 25019118
21. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144:304-310. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.011 PMID: 23910212
22. Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146:673-682. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023 PMID: 25439218
23. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1:307-310. PMID: 2868172
24. Peluso MJ, Josell SD, Levine SW, Lorei BJ. Digital models: an introduction. Semin Orthod 2004; 10:226-238.
25. Rheude B, Sadowsky PL, Ferriera A, Jacobson A. An evaluation of the use of digital study models in orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning. Angle Orthod 2005; 75:300-304. PMID: 15898364
26. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14:1-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01503.x PMID: 21205164
27. Santoro M, Galkin S, Teredesai M, Nicolay OF, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of measurements made on digital and plaster models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124:101-105. PMID: 12867904
28. Naidu D, Scott J, Ong D, Ho CT. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of three methods used to measure tooth widths for Bolton analyses. Aust Orthod J 2009; 25:97-103. PMID: 20043542