Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the cutting-off and rescanning procedures have an impact on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the intraoral digital scan. METHODS: A right quadrant digital scan (reference scan) of a participant was obtained using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). The reference scan was duplicated 135 times and divided into 3 groups based on the number of rescanned mesh areas: 1 (G1 group), 2 (G2 group), and 3 (G3 group) mesh holes. Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups depending on the mesh hole diameter: 2 mm- (G1-2, G2-2, and G3-2), 4 mm- (G1-4, G2-4, and G3-4), and 6 mm- (G1-6, G2-6, and G3-6) (n = 15). A software program (Geomagic; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) was used to assess the discrepancy between the reference and the experimental scans using the root mean square (RMS). Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc multiple comparison Dunn's tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05). RESULTS: Trueness ranged from 5 to 20 µm and precision ranged from 2 to 10 µm. For trueness assessment, Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences on the RMS error values among the groups tested (P<.05). The G3-6 group obtained the lowest trueness and lowest precision values, while the G1-2, G1-4, G2-2, G2-4, and G3-2 groups computed the highest trueness and precision values. When comparing groups with the same number of rescanned mesh holes but with different diameter, the higher the diameter of the rescanned mesh hole, the lower the trueness values computed; however, when comparing groups with the same diameter of the rescanned mesh hole but with differing number of rescanned mesh holes, no significant differences were found in the RMS values among the groups. For the precision evaluation, Levene's test showed a lack of equality of the variances, and therefore of the standard deviations. The F-test with Bonferroni correction identified significant differences between the SDs between group G3-6 and all the other groups. When comparing instead the interquartile range (IQRs) due to the non-normality of the data, groups G1 and G2 also showed lower IQR values or higher precision than groups G3. CONCLUSIONS: Cutting-off and rescanning procedures decreased the accuracy of the IOS tested. The higher the number and diameter of the rescanned areas, the lower the accuracy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Cutting-off and rescanning procedures should be minimized in order to increase the accuracy of the IOS evaluated. The intended clinical use of the intraoral digital scan is a critical factor that might determine the scanning workflow procedures.

Influence of rescanning mesh holes and stitching procedures on the complete-arch scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To measure the impact of different scanning patches on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner (IOS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A typodont was digitized using an industrial optical scanner (GOM Atos Q 3D 12 M) to obtain a reference mesh. The typodont was scanned using an IOS (TRIOS 3). Three groups were generated based on the rescan areas created: no mesh holes (G0 group), 3 mesh holes distributed on the digital scan (G1 group), and 3 mesh holes located on the left quadrant of the digital scan (G2 group). In the G0 group, a digital scan was completed following the manufacturer's scanning protocol. In the G1 group, a digital scan was obtained following the same protocol as G0 group. Three 12-mm diameter holes were created in the occlusal surfaces of the left second first molar, incisal edges of the central incisors, and right first molar of the digital scan using the IOS software. In the G2 group, a digital scan was obtained following the same protocol as G0 group. Three 12-mm diameter holes in the digital scan were created in the occlusal surface of the left first molar and left second and first premolars using the IOS software program. The discrepancy between the control and the experimental digital scans was measured using the root mean square calculation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test demonstrated that data were normally distributed. One-way ANOVA followed by post hoc multiple comparison Bonferroni test were used to analyze the data (α = .05). RESULTS: Trueness values ranged from 15 to 26 µm and the precision ranged from 21 to 150 µm. Significant differences in trueness mean values were found among the groups tested (F(2, 42) = 6.622, P = .003); the Bonferroni test indicated significant mean differences between the G0 and G2 groups (mean difference=0.11, SE=0.003, and P = .002). For precision evaluation, significant precision differences were found between the groups tested (F(2, 39)=9.479, P < .001); the Bonferroni test revealed significant precision differences between G0 and G2 groups (mean difference=-0.12, SE=0.030, and P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Rescanning mesh holes and stitching procedures decreased the trueness and precision of the IOS tested; furthermore, the number and dimensions of mesh holes rescanned represented an important factor that influenced the scanning accuracy of IOS tested. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It is a fundamental procedure obtaining intraoral digital scans without leaving mesh holes, so the rescanning techniques are minimized and, therefore, the scanning accuracy of the intraoral scanner tested is maximized.

Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Diagnostic stone casts can be digitized by using dental optical scanners based on structured light scanning technology. Nondental structured light scanning scanners could also be used; however, the accuracy of these nondental scanners remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3 nondental extraoral structured light scanners. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A representative maxillary diagnostic cast was obtained and digitized by using an extraoral dental scanner (Advaa Lab Scan; GC Europe), and a reference or control standard tessellation language file was obtained. Three nondental extraoral scanners were evaluated: groups ND-1 (Space Spider; Artec), ND-2 (Capture Mini; Geomagic), and ND-3 (DAVID SLS3; David). Ten digital scans per group were recorded at a constant room temperature (23 °C) by an experienced geodetic engineer following the manufacturer's recommendations. The control or reference file was used as a reference to measure the discrepancy between the digitized diagnostic cast and 3 different nondental scans by using an open-source software (CloudCompare v.2.6.1; CloudCompare) and the iterative closest point technique. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were normally distributed. The data were analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA, followed by post hoc Bonferroni tests (α=.05). RESULTS: Significant differences between the 3 experimental nondental scanners and the control or reference scan (P<.001) were found. The ND-2 group had the lowest absolute mean error (trueness) and standard deviation (precision) (39 ±139 µm), followed by the ND-3 group (125 ±113 µm) and the ND1 group (-397 ±25 µm). No statistically significant differences were found in the mean error between the ND-2 and ND-3 groups (P=.228). CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 nondental extraoral scanner tested obtained trueness mean values similar to those of the reference dental scanner. In all groups, the precision mean values were higher than their trueness values, indicating low relative precision.