Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of CAD/CAM-fabricated bite splints in dependence of fabrication method (milling vs 3D printing), positioning (horizontal vs vertical), selection of material, and method of deviation measurement.Materials and methodsBite splints were 3D-printed in either horizontal or vertical position (n = 10) using four different resins (Dental LT, Ortho Clear, Freeprint Splint, V-Splint). As control, ten bite splints were fabricated by CNC milling (ProArt CAD Splint). The splints were scanned and deviations between the CAD-file (trueness) and between each other within one group (precision) were measured by two different software applications and methods (cloud-to-cloud vs cloud-to-mesh). Data were analyzed using univariate analysis, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests.ResultsThe highest impact on accuracy was exerted by the selection of the material (trueness: ηP2 = 0.871, P < 0.001; precision: ηP2 = 0.715, P < 0.001). Milled splints showed the highest trueness (P < 0.01) but not the highest precision at the same time. Horizontally positioned 3D-printed bite splints showed the least deviations in terms of trueness while vertical positioning resulted in the highest precision. The cloud-to-cloud method showed higher measured deviations than the other methods (P < 0.001–P = 0.002).ConclusionMilled splints show higher trueness than 3D-printed ones, while the latter reveal higher reproducibility. The calculated deviations vary according to the measurement method used.Clinical relevanceIn terms of accuracy, milled and 3D-printed bite splints seem to be of equal quality.

This study evaluated the effects of the differences in the printing directions of stereolithography (SLA) three-dimensional (3D)-printed dentures on accuracy (trueness and precision). The maxillary denture was designed using computer-aided design (CAD) software with an STL file (master data) as the output. Three different printing directions (0°, 45°, and 90°) were used. Photopolymer resin was 3D-printed (n = 6/group). After scanning all dentures, the scanning data were saved/output as STL files (experimental data). For trueness, the experimental data were superimposed on the master data sets. For precision, the experimental data were selected from six dentures with three different printing directions and superimposed. The root mean square error (RMSE) and color map data were obtained using a deviation analysis. The averages of the RMSE values of trueness and precision at 0°, 45°, and 90° were statistically compared. The RMSE of trueness and precision were lowest at 45°, followed by 90°; the highest occurred at 0°. The RMSE of trueness and precision were significantly different among all printing directions (p < 0.05). The highest trueness and precision and the most favorable surface adaptation occurred when the printing direction was 45°; therefore, this may be the most effective direction for manufacturing SLA 3D-printed dentures.

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.

Background Until now, a few studies have addressed the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in implantology. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy of 5 different IOSs in the impressions of single and multiple implants, and to compare them. Methods Plaster models were prepared, representative of a partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) to be restored with a single crown (SC) and a partial prosthesis (PP), and a totally edentulous maxilla (TEM) to be restored with a full-arch (FA). These models were scanned with a desktop scanner, to capture reference models (RMs), and with 5 IOSs (CS 3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, DWIO®, Emerald®); 10 scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into a reverse-engineering software where they were superimposed on the corresponding RMs, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A statistical analysis was performed. Results In the SC, CS 3600® had the best trueness (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), followed by Trios3® (22.3 ± 0.5 μm), DWIO® (27.8 ± 3.2 μm), Omnicam® (28.4 ± 4.5 μm), Emerald® (43.1 ± 11.5 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best trueness (23 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (28.5 ± 0.5 μm), Omnicam® (38.1 ± 8.8 μm), Emerald® (49.3 ± 5.5 μm), DWIO® (49.8 ± 5 μm). In the FA, CS 3600® had the best trueness (44.9 ± 8.9 μm), followed by Trios3® (46.3 ± 4.9 μm), Emerald® (66.3 ± 5.6 μm), Omnicam® (70.4 ± 11.9 μm), DWIO® (92.1 ± 24.1 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in trueness was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). In the SC, CS 3600® had the best precision (11.3 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), DWIO® (27.1 ± 10.7 μm), Omnicam® (30.6 ± 3.3 μm), Emerald® (32.8 ± 10.7 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best precision (17 ± 2.3 μm), followed by Trios3® (21 ± 1.9 μm), Emerald® (29.9 ± 8.9 μm), DWIO® (34.8 ± 10.8 μm), Omnicam® (43.2 ± 9.4 μm). In the FA, Trios3® had the best precision (35.6 ± 3.4 μm), followed by CS 3600® (35.7 ± 4.3 μm), Emerald® (61.5 ± 18.1 μm), Omnicam® (89.3 ± 14 μm), DWIO® (111 ± 24.8 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in precision was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). Conclusions The IOSs showed significant differences between them, both in trueness and in precision. The mathematical error increased in the transition from SC to PP up to FA, both in trueness than in precision.

Objectives New generation intraoral scanners are promoted to be suitable for digital scans of long-span edentulous spaces and completely edentulous arches; however, the evidence is lacking. The current study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) in partially and completely edentulous arch models and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy. Materials and methods Four different resin models (completely and partially edentulous maxilla and mandible) were scanned, using a new generation IOS device ( n = 20 each). Ten scans of each model were performed by an IOS-experienced and an inexperienced operator. An industrial high-precision scanner was employed to obtain reference scans. IOS files of each model-operator combination, their respective reference scan files ( n = 10 each; total = 80), as well as the IOS files from each model generated by the same operator, were superimposed ( n = 45; total = 360) to calculate trueness and precision. An ANOVA for mixed models and post hoc t tests for mixed models were used to assess group-wise differences (α = 0.05). Results The median overall trueness and precision were 24.2 μm (IQR 20.7–27.4 μm) and 18.3 μm (IQR 14.4–22.1 μm), respectively. The scans of the inexperienced operator had significantly higher trueness in the edentulous mandibular model ( p = 0.0001) and higher precision in the edentulous maxillary model ( p = 0.0004). Conclusion The accuracy of IOS for partially and completely edentulous arches in in vitro settings was high. Experience with IOS had small influence on the accuracy of the scans. Clinical relevance IOS with the tested new generation intraoral scanner may be suitable for the fabrication of removable dentures regardless of clinician’s experience in IOS.

Background Until now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants. Methods Two gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out. Results In the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (45.8 ± 1.6μm), followed by Trios3® (50.2 ± 2.5μm), Omnicam® (58.8 ± 1.6μm) and TrueDefinition® (61.4 ± 3.0μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®. In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (60.6 ± 11.7μm), followed by Omnicam® (66.4 ± 3.9μm), Trios3® (67.2 ± 6.9μm) and TrueDefinition® (106.4 ± 23.1μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (19.5 ± 3.1μm), followed by Trios3® (24.5 ± 3.7μm), CS3600® (24.8 ± 4.6μm) and Omnicam® (26.3 ± 1.5μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (31.5 ± 9.8μm), followed by Omnicam® (57.2 ± 9.1μm), CS3600® (65.5 ± 16.7μm) and TrueDefinition® (75.3 ± 43.8μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3®. Conclusions Significant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have important clinical implications.

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.

With the rapid progression of additive manufacturing and the emergence of new 3D printing technologies, accuracy assessment is mostly being performed on isosymmetric-shaped test bodies. However, the accuracy of anatomic models can vary. The dimensional accuracy of root mean square values in terms of trueness and precision of 50 mandibular replicas, printed with five common printing technologies, were evaluated. The highest trueness was found for the selective laser sintering printer (0.11 ± 0.016 mm), followed by a binder jetting printer (0.14 ± 0.02 mm), and a fused filament fabrication printer (0.16 ± 0.009 mm). However, highest precision was identified for the fused filament fabrication printer (0.05 ± 0.005 mm) whereas other printers had marginally lower values. Despite the statistically significance (p < 0.001), these differences can be considered clinically insignificant. These findings demonstrate that all 3D printing technologies create models with satisfactory dimensional accuracy for surgical use. Since satisfactory results in terms of accuracy can be reached with most technologies, the choice should be more strongly based on the printing materials, the intended use, and the overall budget. The simplest printing technology (fused filament fabrication) always scored high and thus is a reliable choice for most purposes.

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS), according to different scanning strategies and to the experience of the operator. Six IOS setups were used in this study. Ten scans of a complete epoxy-resin-made maxillary dental arch were performed with each IOS, using four different scanning techniques (manufacturer-suggested scanning strategy, cut-out rescan technique, simplified scanning technique, novel scanning technique). Scans were also performed by an expert operator in the field of digital dentistry. An operator with no experience in the field of intraoral scans performed 10 scans following each of the scanning strategy suggested by the manufacturer. The master model was scanned with an industrial high-resolution reference scanner to obtain a highly accurate digitized reference model. All the digital models were aligned with the reference model using a software aimed at comparing the STL files. A total of n = 300 scans were performed. Once the data were pooled, Medit i700 and Primescan obtained the best results in terms of both trueness and precision, showing no statistically significative differences (p > 0.05) to the first and the second scanning technique, Medit i700 scanner allowed to obtain the best values both in terms of trueness (24.4 ± 2.1 μm and 21.4 ± 12.9 μm, respectively) and precision compared to other IOS (23.0 ± 1.6 μm and 30.0 ± 18.0 μm, respectively). When considering the third scanning technique, Medit i700 recorded the best values in terms of trueness while Primescan recorded the best values in terms of precision (24.0 ± 2.7 μm and 26.8 ± 13.7 μm, respectively). When considering the two operators, significant differences between the two were found only with Medit i700 (p < 0.001). The examined IOS showed statistically significant differences in terms of trueness and precision. The used scanning strategy is a factor influencing the accuracy of IOS. Considering the expertise of the operators, clinically scanning strategies are not operative sensitive in terms of accuracy.

Background Digital workflow is showing an increasing tendency in everyday dentistry. Accuracy is essential during digital dental workflows for all indication areas. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of software updates on the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) devices. Methods 3Shape Trios 3 Pod with software versions 18.1.2. (TRI3_1) and 20.1.2. (TRI3_2); 3Shape Trios 4 Move, version 19.2.2. (TRI4_1); and 3Shape Trios 4 Pod, version 20.1.1. (TRI4_2) were used to take direct optical impressions from a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) full arch reference model with prepared teeth (FDI 11,14,17 for crowns and FDI 26 for onlay) and an edentulous region (between FDI 14 and 17). The scanners were used eight times; STL files were imported into Geomagic Control X for accuracy assessment by comparing them to a reference data set created by an industrial high-precision scanner (AICON SmartScan-3D C5). The average deviation of the surface points was calculated in three locations: across a full arch (Parameter 1), the region of a four-unit bridge (Parameter 2), and a single prepared abutment (Parameter 3). Results In parameter 1 and 2, the newest model with the latest software (TRI4_2) reached the highest accuracy (31.06 ± 5.24 µm and 21.69 ± 7.50 µm). In parameter 3, an older generation scanner running legacy software produced the highest accuracy: TRI4_1, 11.75 ± 0.35 µm. Conclusion Appropriate software updates can significantly increase the trueness and precision of intraoral scanner devices. With updated software, the older generation can match the accuracy level of latest equipment.