Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner

Quintessence International

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 343-349

  Müller, Philipp ^a   Ender, Andreas ^b   Joda, Tim ^a   Katsoulis, Joannis ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Digital impression; Intraoral scan; Precision; Strategy; Trueness

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS;

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DENTAL PROCEDURE; DEVICES; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAXILLA; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOFTWARE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOOTH ARCH;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL ARCH; DENTAL IMPRESSION MATERIALS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL MODELS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAXILLA; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84985036664     PISSN: 00336572     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a35524     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139: 761-763.
2. 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.
3. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-1764.
4. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions: an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R, Rotkina L, Zbaren C, Enkling N, Blatz MB. Precision of fit of implant-supported screw-retained 10-unit computer-aided-designed and computer-aided-manufactured frameworks made from zirconium dioxide and titanium: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:165-174.
9. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision (epub ahead of print, 29 April 2014). J Vis Exp 2014(86) doi 10.3791/51374.
10. Belser UC, MacEntee MI, Richter WA. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:24-29.
11. Katsoulis J, Muller P, Mericske-Stern R, Blatz MB. CAD/CAM fabrication accuracy of long- vs. short-span implant-supported FDPs. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:245-249.
12. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-1304.
13. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-559.
14. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-478.
15. Besl PJ, McKay ND. A method for registration of 3-D shapes. IEEE Trans Pattern Analysis Machine Intelligence 1992;14:239-256.
16. 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.