Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans. Materials and methods A representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). A level of statistical significance of p  < 0.05 was set. Results Mean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero ( p  < 0.05). Conclusions Except for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions. Clinical relevance Despite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations.

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have become increasingly popular in the field of dentistry for capturing accurate digital impressions of patients’ teeth and oral structures. This study investigates the various factors influencing their accuracy. An extensive search of scholarly literature was carried out via PubMed, utilizing appropriate keywords. Factors evaluated in the included studies were categorized into three primary divisions: those related to the operator, the patient, and the IOS itself. The analysis demonstrated that the accuracy of intraoral scanning is influenced by various factors such as scanner selection, operator skill, calibration, patient’s oral anatomy, ambient conditions, and scanning aids. Maintaining updated software and understanding factors beyond scanner resolution are crucial for optimal accuracy. Conversely, smaller IOS tips, fast scanning speeds, and specific scanning patterns compromise the accuracy and precision. By understanding these factors, dental professionals can make more informed decisions and enhance the accuracy of IOSs, leading to improved final dental restorations.

Background: The use of digital technology has exponentially increased over recent years. Intraoral scanners, especially, have gained traction within orthodontics. The objective of the present review is to investigate the available evidence to create an up-to-date presentation of various clinical aspects of intraoral scanners in orthodontics. Methods: Search without restrictions in seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, Proquest) since inception, and hand searching until October 2020, were conducted. Results: The majority of studies were either cross-over or parallel group studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scanners, in comparison to conventional methods, were investigated in several studies, with controversial results. The duration of the procedure did not report any clear outcome in favor of any method. Patients seem to prefer intraoral scanning, even though numerous studies point out the importance of operators’ experience and skills. Conclusions: Despite the innovations that intraoral scanners have brought in orthodontic clinical practice, there are still some challenges and limitations in their use. The majority of existing limitations may be overcome with experience and good clinical skills. More high-quality studies need to be conducted so that clinicians can have a clear image of this new technology.

When taking the final impression for a three-unit fixed partial denture (FPD), the intaglio surface of the pontic of provisional restoration cannot be transferred accurately to that of definitive restoration. The intra- and extra-oral scanning (IEOS) technique, a method for accurately reproducing the submucosal morphology of the superstructure of an implant, has been reported using an intraoral scanner. In the present study, we evaluated the difference between the conventional impression method using impression material and the IEOS technique in reproducing the morphology of the surface of the pontic of a definitive FPD. There was a significant difference in the trueness of the intaglio surface morphology of the pontic between the conventional method and the IEOS technique; however, no significant difference in precision was observed. As a result, the intaglio surface of the pontic of the three-unit FPD could be transferred to definitive restorations more accurately with the IEOS technique than with the conventional method. These results suggest that the IEOS technique can duplicate the intaglio surface of the pontic more reproducibly to the definitive restorations compared with the conventional method.

Backgrounds Despite the rapid development of digital dentistry, the use of digital intraoral scanners remains limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in views on intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training. Methods Thirty-four dental hygienists with >3 years of clinical experience participated and were divided into 2 groups : iTero and Trios groups. Participants of each group practiced the usage of both intraoral scanners, for total 12 times over 4 sessions, Questionnaires were given to participants at two different times; prior to and after the completion of the training sessions. The parameters of questionnaires included on difficulty of use, patient discomfort, awareness, preference, and clinical usefulness of intraoral scanners and comparison of two types of scanners. Results Upon the completion of the training, both iTero and Trios groups gave positive feedback on anticipated accuracy, efficiency, and clinical usefulness. More participants of the iTero group responded that the level of difficulty of use and patient discomfort was greater than Trios. Both groups preferred Trios for its clinical usefulness. Conclusions The perceptions of dental hygienists on usage of intraoral scanner and digital impression improved positively with the training. The participants favored Trios over iTero in terms of difficulty of use , patient comfort, and clinical usefulness. This study showed that appropriate training could change the views on the efficiency of intraoral scanners positively among dental hygienists.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of scanning origin location on the data accuracy of removable partial denture (RPD) abutment teeth region in digital impressions acquired by an intraoral scanner. A mandibular partially edentulous model including the following target abutment teeth was used: the left second molar (#37); left first premolar (#34); and right second premolar (#45). The following scanning strategies were tested: the strategy starting from #37 to mesial direction (37M); strategies starting from #34 to mesial (34M) and distal directions (34D), and strategies starting from #45 to mesial (45M) and distal directions (45D). The evaluated measures were trueness, precision, and linear accuracy. One-way and two-way ANOVA were performed for the comparison of trueness and linear accuracy, while Kruskal–Wallis test was performed for the precision comparison (α = 0.05). 45M and 45D showed significantly superior trueness of #34 to 37M and 34D. 45M also showed significantly superior trueness of #45 to 34. 45D showed significantly inferior linear accuracy of #34 and superior linear accuracy of #45 compared to other strategies. It was concluded that scanning origin location would have an impact on data accuracy of RPD abutment teeth region in digital impressions acquired by intraoral scanner.

Dental identification involves compiling a prescribed dental chart of a deceased person’s oral findings which is then compared with antemortem dental information. However, this process is complicated, and a comparison can be difficult. In this study, the authors evaluated whether it is possible to identify images from antemortem dental information images using an image comparison program (AKAZE) with one-sided cross-sectional images generated from the STL (Standard Triangle Language) data of upper and lower jaw models acquired with an intraoral scanner. From the STL data of 20 patients, 120 cross-sectional images were generated by three practitioners and compared with the cross-sectional images of 20 patients generated later, and the degree of agreement calculated by AKAZE was analyzed. Statistically significant differences were found between images of the same and different models, and statistically significant differences were obtained when comparing one-sided images with limited information, suggesting that partial dentition information can be used to identify the same dentition.

The advancement of intraoral scanners has allowed for more efficient workflow in the dental clinical setting. However, limited data exist regarding the accuracy of the digital impressions produced with various scanner settings and scanning approaches. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions at the crown preparation margin using different scanning resolutions of a specific intraoral scanner system. An all-ceramic crown preparation of a mandibular first molar was constructed in a typodont, and a scan (n = 3) was created with an industrial-grade laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) as the control. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) under three settings—high resolution (HR), standard resolution (SR), and combined resolution (SHR). Comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed with Geomagic Control X software to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the control scan along the preparation finish line. The scan time and number of images captured per scan were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and Dunnett’s T3 test (α = 0.05). Significant differences were observed for scan time and for number of images captured among scan resolution settings (α < 0.05). The scan time for the SR group was, on average, 34.2 s less than the SHR group and 46.5 s less than the HR group. For discrepancy on the finish line, no significant differences were observed among scanning resolutions (HR: 31.5 ± 5.5 μm, SHR: 33.2 ± 3.7 μm, SR: 33.6 ± 3.1 μm). Significant differences in discrepancy were observed among tooth surfaces, with the distal surface showing the highest discrepancies. In conclusion, the resolution of the intra-oral scanner is primarily defined by the system hardware and optimized for default scans. A software high-resolution mode that obtains more data over a longer time may not necessarily benefit the scan accuracy, while the tooth preparation and surface parameters do affect the accuracy.

Objectives The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether intraoral scanning (IOS) is able to reduce working time and improve patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared to conventional impression (CI) techniques, taking into account the size of the scanned area. The secondary aim was to verify the effectiveness of IOS procedures based on available prosthodontic outcomes. Materials and methods Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the outcomes of IOS and CI performed during the treatment of partially and complete edentulous patients for tooth- or implant-supported restorations. Qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the time efficiency and PROMs produced by the two different techniques. Clinical prosthodontic outcomes were analyzed among the included studies when available. Results Seventeen studies (9 randomized controlled trials and 8 prospective clinical studies) were selected for qualitative synthesis. The 17 included studies provided data from 430 IOS and 370 CI performed in 437 patients. A total of 7 different IOS systems and their various updated versions were used for digital impressions. The results demonstrated that IOS was overall faster than CI independent of whether quadrant or complete-arch scanning was utilized, regardless of the nature of the restoration (tooth or implant supported). IOS was generally preferred over CI regardless of the size of the scanned area and nature of the restoration (tooth- or implant-supported). Similar prosthodontic outcomes were reported for workflows implementing CI and IOS. Conclusions Within the limitations of this systematic review, IOS is faster than CI, independent of whether a quadrant or complete arch scan is conducted. IOS can improve the patient experience measured by overall preference and comfort and is able to provide reliable prosthodontic outcomes. Clinical relevance Reduced procedure working time associated with the use of IOS can improve clinical efficiency and the patient experience during impression procedures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an essential component of evidence-based dental practice as they allow the evaluation of therapeutic modalities from the perspective of the patient. IOS is generally preferred by patients over conventional impressions.

Background The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. Methods A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed. Results With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation. Conclusions Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.