Influence of Tooth Preparation Design and Scan Angulations on the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Digital Scanners: An in Vitro Study Based on 3‐Dimensional Comparisons

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 201 - 206
• Main Authors: Ammoun, Rami, Suprono, Montry S., Goodacre, Charles J., Oyoyo, Udochukwu, Carrico, Caroline K., Kattadiyil, Mathew T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2020
• Subjects: Accuracy; adjacent; angulation; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Arch; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Models; Dentistry; design; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Intraoral scanning; limitations; preparation; scan; Statistical analysis; STL; Teeth; three‐dimensional; tooth; Tooth Preparation; angulation; three-dimensional; Intraoral scanning; design; scan; accuracy; STL; adjacent; teeth; tooth; limitations; preparation
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13148

Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence of adjacent teeth. Materials and Methods Eight different complete coverage (CC) and partial coverage (PC) tooth preparations were scanned by two IOS, the 3Shape TRIOS (TRI) and the 3M True Definition (TRU). All teeth preparations were scanned in the presence and absence of adjacent teeth. Four groups were established for each IOS; Group 1: PC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 2: CC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 3: PC preparations without adjacent teeth. Group 4: CC preparations without adjacent teeth. 3D analysis was performed to examine average absolute discrepancy (AAD) and maximum absolute discrepancy (MAD). A Two‐way ANOVA was performed followed by a post‐hoc Tukey's test HSD to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth, preparation design, and the type of IOS used. Results For TRI, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 20 ± 1.8 µm, 19.6 ± 2.4 µm, 15.5 ± 2.7 µm, and 12.9 ± 1.4 µm, respectively, whereas MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 109.7 ± 13.5 µm, 93.2 ± 28.9 µm, 85.6 ± 16.1 µm, and 66 ± 20.1 µm, respectively. For TRU IOS, AAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 22.0 ± 3.6 µm, 17.9 ± 2 µm, 20 ± 5.9 µm, and 14.9 ± 1.7 µm, respectively, whereas the MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 151.4 ± 38.4 µm, 92.2 ± 17. µm, 92.6 ± 23.6 µm, and 71.4 ± 11.9 µm, respectively. Two‐way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences between the AAD and MAD of TRI and TRU (p < 0.001). There were also statistically significant differences for presence or absence of adjacent teeth (p < 0.001), and preparation design (p < 0.001). Conclusions PC preparation scans revealed lower accuracy than CC. The presence of adjacent teeth decreased the accuracy of both IOS. TRI gave higher accuracy than TRU for PC, but both IOS showed comparable accuracy for CC groups.