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
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 t...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of prosthodontics Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 201 - 206 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
01.03.2020
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | 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. |
---|---|
AbstractList | PurposeTo 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 MethodsEight 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.ResultsFor 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).ConclusionsPC 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. Abstract 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. |
Author | Suprono, Montry S. Goodacre, Charles J. Ammoun, Rami Oyoyo, Udochukwu Carrico, Caroline K. Kattadiyil, Mathew T. |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Rami orcidid: 0000-0003-3244-3482 surname: Ammoun fullname: Ammoun, Rami email: rammoun@vcu.edu, ramiammoun@icloud.com organization: Virginia Commonwealth University – sequence: 2 givenname: Montry S. orcidid: 0000-0003-3933-3550 surname: Suprono fullname: Suprono, Montry S. organization: Loma Linda University – sequence: 3 givenname: Charles J. surname: Goodacre fullname: Goodacre, Charles J. organization: Loma Linda University – sequence: 4 givenname: Udochukwu surname: Oyoyo fullname: Oyoyo, Udochukwu organization: Loma Linda University School of Dentistry – sequence: 5 givenname: Caroline K. surname: Carrico fullname: Carrico, Caroline K. organization: Virginia Commonwealth University – sequence: 6 givenname: Mathew T. surname: Kattadiyil fullname: Kattadiyil, Mathew T. organization: Loma Linda University |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31994818$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp9kctu1DAUhi1URC-w4QGQJTYIKSW2c7HZDTNcBlVqRQvqLnKck6lHiT21E1Wz6yP0IXgynoSTmcKCBd4cS-c7n4_1H5MD5x0Q8pKlpwzPu7XfhFMmWCafkCOWC57ITF0f4D3NVaIydn1IjmNcpyljuWTPyKFgSmWSySPyc-nabgRngPqWXnk_3NCLABsd9GC9owuIduWodg29NNrRmVuN3a4VKbaHG6AzY8agzXYnuPN06YagfdAdXdiVHbBOkw5CfI_j1Dr6ww7B08thbLb0g47QTCrx6_5hYXtwEeU4NPc9bmEjvvScPG11F-HFYz0h3z99vJp_Sc7OPy_ns7PEiLyUCZS5UqxQOteyKTj-tkgzKKUqC2WyEkRjtDGtrGvgOWu5NLquEVAFMM7LVpyQN3vvJvjbEeJQ9TYa6DrtwI-x4iKTXAhVpIi-_gdd-zHg3hNVplJgBBypt3vKBB9jgLbaBNvrsK1YWk3ZVVN21S47hF89Kse6h-Yv-icsBNgeuLMdbP-jqr6eX3zbS38DH9aoOA |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_22141_ogh_4_2_2023_155 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2024_04_001 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2023_104563 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2023_104764 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0301361 crossref_primary_10_3390_dj8020052 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2023_01_017 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13591 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2023_10_010 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2024_03_017 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_023_02963_7 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13468 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2021_01_029 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_023_03233_2 crossref_primary_10_17567_ataunidfd_713422 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajodo_2023_08_005 crossref_primary_10_33262_anatomiadigital_v6i4_3_2811 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_04_019 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18168449 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13749 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jdent_2022_104391 crossref_primary_10_51847_izu17ACVUd crossref_primary_10_3390_app11209399 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12903_022_02176_4 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13457 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13812 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2020_12_008 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2022_05_001 crossref_primary_10_3390_prosthesis5010003 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics13213291 crossref_primary_10_1111_jerd_12993 |
Cites_doi | 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3 10.1111/jopr.12410 10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 10.1111/clr.10_13042 10.11607/ijp.5643 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 10.11607/ijp.5138 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0389 10.1371/journal.pone.0163107 10.11607/prd.2185 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.021 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00014-7 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.020 10.1016/j.dental.2018.08.060 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00095.x 10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4 10.1186/s40510-018-0205-5 10.1067/mpr.2001.114685 10.1007/s00784-019-02840-0 10.3390/ijerph16040544 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00022.x 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.022 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists. 2020 American College of Prosthodontists |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists – notice: 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists. – notice: 2020 American College of Prosthodontists |
DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM AAYXX CITATION 7QP K9. 7X8 |
DOI | 10.1111/jopr.13148 |
DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed CrossRef Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) CrossRef ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic CrossRef MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Dentistry |
EISSN | 1532-849X |
EndPage | 206 |
ExternalDocumentID | 10_1111_jopr_13148 31994818 JOPR13148 |
Genre | reviewArticle Journal Article Review |
GroupedDBID | --- .3N .GA .Y3 05W 0R~ 10A 1OB 1OC 29L 31~ 33P 34H 3SF 4.4 50Y 50Z 51W 51X 52M 52N 52O 52P 52S 52T 52U 52V 52W 52X 5GY 5HH 5LA 5VS 66C 702 7PT 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 8UM 930 A03 AAESR AAEVG AAHHS AANLZ AAONW AASGY AAXRX AAZKR ABCQN ABCUV ABEML ABJNI ABPVW ABQWH ABXGK ACAHQ ACBWZ ACCFJ ACCZN ACGFS ACGOF ACMXC ACPOU ACPRK ACSCC ACXBN ACXQS ADBBV ADBTR ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADOZA ADXAS ADZMN AEEZP AEIGN AEIMD AEQDE AEUQT AEUYR AFBPY AFEBI AFFNX AFFPM AFGKR AFPWT AFZJQ AHBTC AHEFC AHMBA AIACR AITYG AIURR AIWBW AJBDE ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AMBMR AMYDB ASPBG ATUGU AVWKF AZBYB AZFZN AZVAB BAFTC BDRZF BFHJK BHBCM BMXJE BROTX BRXPI BY8 C45 CAG COF CS3 CWXXS D-E D-F DC6 DCZOG DPXWK DR2 DRFUL DRMAN DRSTM EBD EBS EJD F00 F01 F04 F5P FEDTE FUBAC G-S G.N GODZA H.T H.X HF~ HGLYW HVGLF HZI HZ~ IX1 J0M K48 KBYEO LATKE LC2 LC3 LEEKS LH4 LITHE LOXES LP6 LP7 LUTES LW6 LYRES M41 MEWTI MK4 MRFUL MRMAN MRSTM MSFUL MSMAN MSSTM MXFUL MXMAN MXSTM N04 N05 N9A NF~ O66 O9- OIG OVD P2W P2X P4D PALCI PQQKQ Q.N Q11 QB0 R.K RIWAO RJQFR ROL RX1 SAMSI SUPJJ TEORI UB1 W8V W99 WBKPD WBNRW WIH WIJ WIK WOHZO WPGGZ WQJ WRC WXSBR XG1 ZZTAW ~IA ~WT ACXME CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM AAYXX CITATION 7QP K9. 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c3578-e7599169a5a8d62011604e789769c47e3dcaccf8bbe251f28cabb4e796e1227f3 |
IEDL.DBID | DR2 |
ISSN | 1059-941X |
IngestDate | Fri Aug 16 12:01:51 EDT 2024 Fri Sep 13 04:29:11 EDT 2024 Fri Aug 23 04:33:32 EDT 2024 Thu May 23 23:46:04 EDT 2024 Sat Aug 24 01:07:42 EDT 2024 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 3 |
Keywords | angulation three-dimensional Intraoral scanning design scan accuracy STL adjacent teeth tooth limitations preparation |
Language | English |
License | 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c3578-e7599169a5a8d62011604e789769c47e3dcaccf8bbe251f28cabb4e796e1227f3 |
Notes | . The authors deny any conflicts of interest in regards to the present study ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Review-1 |
ORCID | 0000-0003-3933-3550 0000-0003-3244-3482 |
PMID | 31994818 |
PQID | 2370838492 |
PQPubID | 1086383 |
PageCount | 6 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2348233960 proquest_journals_2370838492 crossref_primary_10_1111_jopr_13148 pubmed_primary_31994818 wiley_primary_10_1111_jopr_13148_JOPR13148 |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | March 2020 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2020-03-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 03 year: 2020 text: March 2020 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | United States |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: Hoboken |
PublicationTitle | Journal of prosthodontics |
PublicationTitleAlternate | J Prosthodont |
PublicationYear | 2020 |
Publisher | Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
Publisher_xml | – name: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
References | 2015; 35 2009; 22 2015; 19 2015; 18 2010; 35 2013; 109 2017; 28 2006; 15 2019; 16 2006; 137 2003; 111 2019; 122 2001; 85 2014; 112 2016; 11 2017; 118 2019; 121 2018; 19 2018; 18 2017; 30 2013; 17 2017; 17 2019; 23 1999; 15 2016; 116 2018; 34 2018; 31 2016; 25 2016; 46 Ferrari M (e_1_2_6_20_1) 2018; 31 e_1_2_6_32_1 e_1_2_6_10_1 e_1_2_6_31_1 e_1_2_6_30_1 Nedelcu RG (e_1_2_6_7_1) 2014; 112 e_1_2_6_19_1 e_1_2_6_13_1 e_1_2_6_14_1 e_1_2_6_11_1 e_1_2_6_12_1 Braian M (e_1_2_6_15_1) 2019; 122 e_1_2_6_18_1 e_1_2_6_16_1 Zimmermann M (e_1_2_6_9_1) 2015; 18 e_1_2_6_8_1 Wittneben JG (e_1_2_6_2_1) 2009; 22 e_1_2_6_5_1 e_1_2_6_4_1 da Costa JB (e_1_2_6_21_1) 2010; 35 e_1_2_6_6_1 e_1_2_6_25_1 Vandeweghe S (e_1_2_6_24_1) 2015; 35 e_1_2_6_3_1 e_1_2_6_23_1 e_1_2_6_22_1 e_1_2_6_29_1 e_1_2_6_28_1 Villaumbrosia PG (e_1_2_6_17_1) 2016; 116 e_1_2_6_27_1 e_1_2_6_26_1 |
References_xml | – volume: 118 start-page: 39 year: 2017 end-page: 399 article-title: Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions publication-title: J Prosthet Dent – volume: 28 start-page: 11 year: 2017 end-page: 11 article-title: Clinical performance of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations: a systematic review and meta‐analysis publication-title: Clin Oral Implants Res – volume: 116 start-page: 543 year: 2016 end-page: 550.e1 article-title: In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies publication-title: Int J Prosthodont – volume: 18 start-page: 101 year: 2015 end-page: 129 article-title: Intraoral scanning systems—a current overview publication-title: Int J Comput Dent – volume: 30 start-page: 373 year: 2017 end-page: 376 article-title: Improvement of a digital impression with conventional materials: overcoming intraoral scanner limitations publication-title: Int J Prosthodon – volume: 137 start-page: 1289 year: 2006 end-page: 96 article-title: Computer‐aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities publication-title: J Am Dent Assoc – volume: 18 start-page: 27 year: 2018 article-title: Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison publication-title: BMC Oral Health – volume: 109 start-page: 121 year: 2013 end-page: 128 article-title: Accuracy of complete‐arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision publication-title: J Prosthet Dent – volume: 112 start-page: 1461 year: 2014 end-page: 71 article-title: Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3‐dimensional analysis publication-title: Int J Prosthodont – volume: 19 start-page: 6 year: 2018 article-title: Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three‐dimensional surface analysis publication-title: Prog Orthod – volume: 17 start-page: 149 year: 2017 article-title: Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature publication-title: BMC Oral Health – volume: 15 start-page: 54 year: 1999 end-page: 61 article-title: Clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays: a systematic review publication-title: Dental Materials – volume: 15 start-page: 155 year: 2006 end-page: 163 article-title: Marginal adaptation of Cerec 3 CAD/CAM composite crowns using two different finish line preparation designs publication-title: J of Prosthodont – volume: 118 start-page: 400 year: 2017 end-page: 405 article-title: Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: a clinical study using a reference appliance publication-title: J Prosthet Dent – volume: 46 start-page: 3 year: 2016 end-page: 12 article-title: A comparison of the precision of three‐dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction publication-title: Korean J Orthod – volume: 85 start-page: 363 year: 2001 end-page: 376 article-title: Tooth preparations for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles publication-title: J Prosthet Dent – volume: 34 year: 2018 article-title: CAD/CAM or conventional ceramic restorations longevity: systematic review and meta‐analysis publication-title: Dent Mater J – volume: 16 start-page: 544 year: 2019 article-title: Influence of intra‐oral scanner (I.O.S.) on the marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM single crowns publication-title: Int J Environ Res Public Health – volume: 19 start-page: 2027 year: 2015 end-page: 2034 article-title: Accuracy of single‐tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients publication-title: Clin Oral Investig – volume: 31 start-page: 107 year: 2018 end-page: 113 article-title: Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques publication-title: Int J Prosthodont – volume: 31 start-page: 272 year: 2018 end-page: 276 article-title: The ability of marginal detection using different intraoral scanning systems: a pilot randomized controlled trial publication-title: Am J Dent – volume: 111 start-page: 163 year: 2003 end-page: 169 article-title: Clinical and SEM evaluation of all‐ceramic chair‐side CAD/CAM‐generated partial crowns publication-title: Eur J Oral Sci – volume: 35 start-page: 115 year: 2015 end-page: 121 article-title: Accuracy of optical dental digitizers: an in vitro study publication-title: Int J Prosthodont – volume: 121 start-page: 811 year: 2019 end-page: 820 article-title: Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch publication-title: J Prosthet Dent – volume: 23 start-page: 4043 year: 2019 end-page: 4050 article-title: Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression—a split‐mouth randomised clinical study publication-title: Clin Oral Investig – volume: 17 start-page: 1759 year: 2013 end-page: 1764 article-title: Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow publication-title: Clin Oral Investig – volume: 122 start-page: 129 year: 2019 end-page: 136.e2 article-title: Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete‐arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study publication-title: Int J Prosthodont – volume: 11 year: 2016 article-title: Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study publication-title: Plos One – volume: 35 start-page: 324 year: 2010 end-page: 329 article-title: Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D publication-title: J Conserv Dent – volume: 22 start-page: 466 year: 2009 end-page: 471 article-title: A systematic review of the clinical performance of CAD/CAM single‐tooth restorations publication-title: Int J Prosthodont – volume: 25 start-page: 282 year: 2016 end-page: 287 article-title: Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique publication-title: Randomized Clin Trial. J Prosthodont – ident: e_1_2_6_10_1 doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x – ident: e_1_2_6_31_1 doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3 – ident: e_1_2_6_27_1 doi: 10.1111/jopr.12410 – ident: e_1_2_6_6_1 doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 – ident: e_1_2_6_3_1 doi: 10.1111/clr.10_13042 – ident: e_1_2_6_8_1 doi: 10.11607/ijp.5643 – volume: 122 start-page: 129 year: 2019 ident: e_1_2_6_15_1 article-title: Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete‐arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study publication-title: Int J Prosthodont contributor: fullname: Braian M – volume: 35 start-page: 324 year: 2010 ident: e_1_2_6_21_1 article-title: Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D publication-title: J Conserv Dent contributor: fullname: da Costa JB – ident: e_1_2_6_23_1 doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 – volume: 112 start-page: 1461 year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_6_7_1 article-title: Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3‐dimensional analysis publication-title: Int J Prosthodont contributor: fullname: Nedelcu RG – ident: e_1_2_6_11_1 doi: 10.11607/ijp.5138 – ident: e_1_2_6_12_1 doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0389 – ident: e_1_2_6_18_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163107 – volume: 35 start-page: 115 year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_6_24_1 article-title: Accuracy of optical dental digitizers: an in vitro study publication-title: Int J Prosthodont doi: 10.11607/prd.2185 contributor: fullname: Vandeweghe S – ident: e_1_2_6_32_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.021 – ident: e_1_2_6_13_1 doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00014-7 – volume: 22 start-page: 466 year: 2009 ident: e_1_2_6_2_1 article-title: A systematic review of the clinical performance of CAD/CAM single‐tooth restorations publication-title: Int J Prosthodont contributor: fullname: Wittneben JG – ident: e_1_2_6_25_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.020 – ident: e_1_2_6_4_1 doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.08.060 – volume: 31 start-page: 272 year: 2018 ident: e_1_2_6_20_1 article-title: The ability of marginal detection using different intraoral scanning systems: a pilot randomized controlled trial publication-title: Am J Dent contributor: fullname: Ferrari M – volume: 116 start-page: 543 year: 2016 ident: e_1_2_6_17_1 article-title: In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies publication-title: Int J Prosthodont contributor: fullname: Villaumbrosia PG – ident: e_1_2_6_30_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00095.x – ident: e_1_2_6_26_1 doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7 – volume: 18 start-page: 101 year: 2015 ident: e_1_2_6_9_1 article-title: Intraoral scanning systems—a current overview publication-title: Int J Comput Dent contributor: fullname: Zimmermann M – ident: e_1_2_6_29_1 doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4 – ident: e_1_2_6_16_1 doi: 10.1186/s40510-018-0205-5 – ident: e_1_2_6_22_1 doi: 10.1067/mpr.2001.114685 – ident: e_1_2_6_5_1 doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02840-0 – ident: e_1_2_6_28_1 doi: 10.3390/ijerph16040544 – ident: e_1_2_6_14_1 doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00022.x – ident: e_1_2_6_19_1 doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.022 |
SSID | ssj0011581 |
Score | 2.3703017 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | Purpose
To evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence... To evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence of... Abstract Purpose To evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the... PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence of... PURPOSETo evaluate the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) in terms of different preparation designs and scan angulation limitation due to the presence of... |
SourceID | proquest crossref pubmed wiley |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Publisher |
StartPage | 201 |
SubjectTerms | 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 |
Title | 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 |
URI | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fjopr.13148 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31994818 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2370838492/abstract/ https://search.proquest.com/docview/2348233960 |
Volume | 29 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3LbtQwFLWqbmDD-xEoyAhWSBk1sRM7FZuhQ9VWAqrSotmgyM9qhORUmRlVZcUn8BF8GV_Cvc5DFCQk2EXyK_H1tY-d63MIeVEq7SxTsDfRtkx5ntm08kWVKi5dJnzmncPbyG_flfun_HBezDfIq-EuTMcPMR64oWfE-RodXOnlr07enLeTjAGchwkYmfQQER2P3FGAdKJCKeKHtOLZvOcmjWE8Y9Grq9EfEPMqYo1Lzt5N8ml42S7S5PNkvdIT8-U3Hsf__Zpb5EaPRem0Gzy3yYYLd8i1GcYPoQTcXfL9YJAwoY2nJw1YlR61rqMLbwKdxfAPqoKlH8BEdBrOejWwJYVkwJZ0asy6VeYyVnDR0AM8TEZWADpbnKFgSSwZAITuQHG6CPTjYtU2FOMbL-lrWGMtVsV-fP02QyGCjkSE7o7yict75HTvzcnuftrLOqQGqXVSJwoEpZUqlLQlApBymzshARhVhgvHrFHGeKm1A_Dlc2mU1pChKl2W58Kz-2QzNME9JLQsjGBGKG7VNudeyJIbZ721VgqXe5-Q54N56_OOvaMedz3Q43Xs8YRsDZavew9e1jkTgE4lr_KEPBuTwffwh4oKrlljHi5zxmATmJAH3YgZm2FIugxoKCEvo93_0n59-P7oOD49-pfMj8n1HDf_MSBui2yu2rV7AghppZ9GT_gJjAAQWw |
link.rule.ids | 315,786,790,1382,27957,27958,46329,46753 |
linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3LbtQwFLWgLMqG8ialgBGskDJqbCdO2A0dqpnSlqpM0ewix49qhORUmRmhsuIT-Ai-jC_hXicTUZCQYBfJL8XXNz6-uT6HkJeZqqzhCs4mlcliwRITFy4tYiVym0iXOGvxNvLRcTY-EwezdNbl5uBdmJYfog-4oWeE7zU6OAakf_Xy-qIZJBzw_HVyA_w9DSeq0549CrBO0ChFBBEXIpl17KQhkadve3U_-gNkXsWsYdPZ32qVVReBqxBzTT4NVstqoL_8xuT43-9zm9zq4CgdtuvnDrlm_V2yOcIUIlSBu0e-T9YqJrR2dFqDYelJY1vG8NrTUcgAocob-gGsRIf-vBMEW1AoBnhJh1qvGqUvQwefazrBeDISA9DR_Bw1S0JLDzj0NTSnc08_zpdNTTHF8ZK-gW3WYFf8x9dvI9QiaHlE6F6voLi4T8723073xnGn7BBrZNeJrUwRlxYqVbnJEINku8LKHLBRoYW03GiltcurygL-cizXqqqgQpHZhDHp-AOy4WtvHxGapVpyLZUwalcIJ_NMaGucMSaXljkXkRdr-5YXLYFH2R98YMbLMOMR2VmbvuyceFEyLgGg5qJgEXneF4P74T8V5W29wjoiZ5zDOTAiD9sl0w_DkXcZAFFEXgXD_2X88uD9yWl42v6Xys_I5nh6dFgeTo7fPSY3GcYCQn7cDtlYNiv7BADTsnoa3OIniUYUfQ |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3LbtQwFL0qRQI2vKGBAkawQsqosZ04QWyGhlGnQBmVtpoNihw_qlGlZDQPobLiE_gIvowvwdd5iIKEBLtIfsW-vvGxc30OwPNElkYz6fYmpU5CTiMdZjbOQslTEwkbWWPwNvL7g2TvmO9P4-kGvOruwjT8EP2BG3qG_16jg8-1_dXJ6_liEDEH5y_BZZ4winM6P-zJoxzU8RKlCCDCjEfTlpzUx_H0ZS8uR39gzIuQ1a85oxvwqXvbJtTkbLBelQP15Tcix__tzk243oJRMmxmzy3YMNVtuJpjABFqwN2B7-NOw4TUlhzVzqxksjANX3hdkdzHfxBZafLR2YgMq9NWDmxJXLIDl2So1Hoh1bmv4HNNxniajLQAJJ-domKJL1k5FPrSFSezipzMVouaYIDjOXntFlmNVbEfX7_lqETQsIiQ3V4_cXkXjkdvjnb3wlbXIVTIrRMaESMqzWQsU50gAkl2uBGpQ0aZ4sIwraRSNi1L49CXpamSZekyZImJKBWW3YPNqq7MFpAkVoIpIbmWO5xbkSZcGW211qkw1NoAnnXmLeYNfUfRb3vciBd-xAPY7ixftC68LCgTDp6mPKMBPO2TnfPhHxVZmXqNeXhKGXO7wADuNzOmb4Yh67KDQwG88Hb_S_vF_ofJoX968C-Zn8CVST4q3o0P3j6EaxQPAnxw3DZsrhZr88ihpVX52DvFT0olEyw |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Influence+of+Tooth+Preparation+Design+and+Scan+Angulations+on+the+Accuracy+of+Two+Intraoral+Digital+Scanners%3A+An+in+Vitro+Study+Based+on+3%E2%80%90Dimensional+Comparisons&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+prosthodontics&rft.au=Ammoun%2C+Rami&rft.au=Suprono%2C+Montry+S.&rft.au=Goodacre%2C+Charles+J.&rft.au=Oyoyo%2C+Udochukwu&rft.date=2020-03-01&rft.issn=1059-941X&rft.eissn=1532-849X&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=201&rft.epage=206&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fjopr.13148&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1111_jopr_13148 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1059-941X&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1059-941X&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1059-941X&client=summon |