Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 14; no. 11; p. e0222070
• Main Authors: Kim, Ryan Jin-Young, Benic, Goran I, Park, Ji-Man
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 19.11.2019; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Accuracy; Analysis; Bicuspid; Biology and Life Sciences; Computer and Information Sciences; Computer simulation; Cuspid; Cylinders; Dental Arch - diagnostic imaging; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Models; Dentistry; Deviation; Diagnostic Imaging - methods; Digital technology; Engineering and Technology; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Mandible; Medicine and Health Sciences; Molar; Mouth, Edentulous - diagnostic imaging; Mouth, Edentulous - therapy; Optical scanners; Reverse engineering; Scanners; Scanning; Spheres; Three dimensional models; Three dimensional printing; Transplants & implants; United States > US; South Korea; Germany
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222070

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital impression of simulated implant scan bodies in a partially edentulous model. A 3D printed partially edentulous mandible model made of Co-Cr with a total of 6 bilaterally positioned cylinders in the canine, second premolar, and second molar area served as the study model. Digital scans of the model were made with a reference scanner (steroSCAN neo) and 5 IOSs (CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, i500, iTero Element, and TRIOS 3) (n = 10). For each IOS's dataset, the XYZ coordinates of the cylinders were obtained from the reference point and the deviations from the reference scanner were calculated using a 3D reverse engineering program (Rapidform). The trueness values were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney post hoc test. Direction and amount of deviation differed among cylinder position and among IOSs. Regardless of the IOS type, the cylinders positioned on the left second molar, nearest to the scanning start point, showed the smallest deviation. The deviation generally increased further away from scanning start point towards the right second molar. TRIOS 3 and i500 outperformed the other IOSs for partially edentulous digital impression. The accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, and iTero Element were similar on the left side, but they showed more deviations on the right side of the arch when compared to the other IOSs. The accuracy of IOS is still an area that needs to be improved.