Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time.

BACKGROUND: The appearance of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in dental offices was an important milestones for the digital innovations in dentistry. Knowing the learning curve for intraoral scanning is crucial, because it can serve as a guideline for clinicians before buying a new IOS. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve required by dental students for intraoral scanning with the 3Shape Trios 4 IOS and the CEREC Primescan IOS, based on scanning time. METHODS: A total of 20 dental students with no previous experience in intraoral scanning participated in the present study. 10 students scanned with Trios 4® IOS (TRI) and 10 students took digital impressions with Primescan® IOS (CER). Every student created 15 digital impressions from patients. Prior to taking the impressions, theoretical and practical education was provided. The total scanning time included the upper and lower arches as well as bite registration, for which average values were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata package with a mixed-effects generalized least squares regression models. RESULTS: The average total scanning times were the following: TRI - 205 s for the 1st impression, 133.6 s for the 15th, CER - 289.8 s for the 1st impression, 147 s for the 15th. The model-based estimate of the difference between the two in case of TRI was 57.5 s, and in CER was 144.2 s which is a highly significant improvement in both cases (P < 0.0001). The slope of the scanning time vs. learning phase curve gradually approached flatness, and maintained a plateau: TRI - from the 11th measurement and CER - from the 14th measurement onward. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limitations of the present study, we found difference between the learning curve of scanner types which are operate various principle of imaging. In case of the TRI fewer digital impressions (11 repeating) were sufficient to reach the average scanning time of an experienced user than using CER (14 repeating). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number: 184/2022).

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria.

BACKGROUND: The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters. METHODS: In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs. RESULTS: The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study. CONCLUSION: The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019).

Comparing the effectiveness of shade measurement by intraoral scanner, digital spectrophotometer, and visual shade assessment.

OBJECTIVE: Trios3 (3Shape, Denmark) intraoral scanner is complete with a tooth shade measurement function, but there is limited information about its efficacy. This in vivo study aimed to evaluate this function in relation to visual and spectrophotometric shade determination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten dental students from Semmelweis University determined tooth shade for 10 volunteers using Vita A1-D4 (VC) and Vita Linearguide 3D-Master (LG) guides, Vita Easyshade spectrophotometer (ES) and Trios 3 intraoral scanner (TR). First and last patient was always the same (Patient R). Intrapersonal repeatability was calculated. Four selected shades of each tooth were presented to student, supervisor, and patient to select best match. Selection percentages were calculated. The supervisor's best match was the reference (∆E00 ). RESULTS: Median ∆E00 of Patient R: TR 1.09; VC 1.5; ES 2.35; LG 3.1. The percentages of best match: VC 16.7%.; TR 21.64%; ES 26.58%; LG 34.08%. Median ∆E00 of students' and supervisor's best match: LG 2.73; ES 4.29; TR 4.29; VC 16.35. TR was the most repeatable. The most "best-match shade tabs" were selected using LG. VC shade tabs was the least consistent with the examined teeth. CONCLUSIONS: TR can be used for shade selection with a 3D-Master tooth color system with visual verification. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Correct tooth shade determination is one of the most important step in making esthetic restorations. New shade matching systems have been developed to surpass the visual method of shade determination. There are new intraoral scanners with built-in shade measurement functions. Digital shade determination methods are more independent from the environmental circumstances, and with intraoral scanners, it is easy to measure the tooth shade by taking a digital impression at the same time. These new devices may be a reliable alternative method for shade selection with visual verification.

Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the complete-arch scanning accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) to that of reference standard tessellation language (STL) files. DATA: Studies comparing the trueness and precision of IOS STL files with those of reference STL scans for different arch types (dentate, edentulous, completely edentulous with implants, and partially edentulous with implants) were included in this study. SOURCES: An electronic search of five databases restricted to the English Language was conducted in October 2021. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 3,815 studies were identified, of which 114 were eligible for inclusion. After study selection and data extraction, pair-wise comparison and NMA were performed to define the accuracy of scanning for four arch subgroups using four outcomes (trueness and precision expressed as mean absolute deviation and root mean square values). Cochrane guidelines and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the risk of bias. GRADE was used for certainty assessment. RESULTS: Fifty-three articles were included in this NMA. Altogether, 26 IOSs were compared directly and indirectly in 10 network systems. The accuracy of IOSs scans were not significantly different from the reference scans for dentate arches (three IOSs), edentulous arches (three IOSs), and completely edentulous arches with implants (one IOS). The accuracy of the IOSs was significantly different from the reference scans for partially edentulous arches with implants. Significant accuracy differences were found between the IOSs, regardless of clinical scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of complete-arch scanning by IOSs differs based on clinical scenarios. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Different IOSs should be used according to the complete arch type.

Clear guidance to select the most accurate technologies for 3D printing dental models - A network meta-analysis✰.

OBJECTIVES: Thus far, the findings of numerous studies conducted on the accuracy of three-dimensional (3D) printed dental models are conflicting. Therefore, the aim of the network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the accuracy of 3D printed dental models compared with digital reference models. DATA: Studies comparing the accuracy of 3D printed full-arch dental models manufactured using different printing techniques to initial STL files were included. SOURCES: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021285863). An electronic search was performed across four databases in November 2021, and search was restricted to the English language. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic search was conducted based on a prespecified search query. 16,303 articles were pooled after the removal of the duplicates. Following study selection and data extraction, 11 eligible studies were included in the NMA in 6 subgroups. The outcomes were specified as trueness and precision and expressed as root mean square (RMS) and absolute mean deviation values. Seven printing technologies were analyzed: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling/fused filament fabrication (FDM/FFF), MultiJet, PolyJet, continuous liquid interface production (CLIP), and LCD technology. The QUADAS-2 and GRADE were used to evaluate the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: SLA, DLP, and PolyJet technologies were the most accurate in producing full-arch dental models. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of the NMA suggest that SLA, DLP, and PolyJet technologies are sufficiently accurate for full-arch dental model production for prosthodontic purposes. In contrast, FDM/FFF, CLIP, and LCD technologies are less suitable for manufacturing dental models.