An in vitro Comparison of Accuracy Between Three Different Face Scanning Modalities.

A mannequin head was digitized using a reference scanner (Scan in a Box) to acquire the reference mesh. Subsequently it was scanned with a structured light scanner (Einscan Pro HD), a stereophotogrammetry scanner (RayFace100) and a laser scanner (Proface 3D Mid) to acquire test meshes.Resulting meshes were delineated in four horizontal areas and discrepancies calculated for the complete face and different facial partitions. One-way Anova and pairwise comparisons tests were used to compare trueness and precision between scanners across different areas. Significant differences were detected among scanners for complete face (F (3, 27) =776, P ⟨ 0.01)) and for delineated face areas (F (11, 99) =200.1, P ⟨ 0.01)). Einscan had significantly higher accuracy for the complete face (P⟨0.01) and significantly higher trueness for each facial partition compared to other scanners. RayFace had significantly higher trueness when scanning the middle part of face compared to other facial parts. Proface had significantly lower upper facial third trueness compared to other facial parts. All scanners had accuracy levels below the 2.00mm threshold. Facial scanning accuracy was influenced per scanner used. Scanning trueness per device was influenced by location of surface area. All scanners had accuracy levels within the acceptable accuracy threshold.

Accuracy of IOS in Full-Arch Dentate Patients Compared to CBCT Cast-Scanning. An In-Vivo Study.

Twenty fully-dentate patients were enrolled in the study.Full-arch maxillary and mandibular PVS impressions were acquired using stock metal trays and the dual mix technique. A full-arch maxillary and mandibular intraoral scanner (IOS) was also obtained using the Trios IOS. The impressions were cast and subsequently scanned using a Planmeca Promax cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner. The casts were also scanned in a Desktop Scanner for reference(7series Dental Wings). DICOM files from the CBCT device were converted into stl files. The.stl files from the CBCT and IOS devices were compared for accuracy against the reference files from the Desktop Scanner using a 3D surface measurement software. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software. Trios had a smaller error (median = 39µm) than CBCT (median = 62µm),a statistically significant difference between the 2 modalities (z=-4.6, p⟨0.005).Concerning the IOS, the anterior teeth presented with a smaller error (42±16µm) as opposed to the posterior teeth (47±16µm), a significant difference (t(39)=-2.4, p=0,019). There were no significant differences in IOS mean accuracy between maxilla and mandible or between left and right quadrants. Fullarch digitization using the Trios IOS is significantly more accurate compared to CBCT scanning of the relevant plaster models. Anterior teeth Trios IOS is statistically more accurate compared to posterior teeth IOS.

Identification of dental implants through the use of Implant Recognition Software (IRS).

AIM: To develop computer software to allow general dental practitioners and others to identify unidentified implants in patients' mouths using a range of criteria. METHODS: Internet searches for implant manufacturing companies worldwide in all languages using terms: dental implants, dental implant manufacturers and dental implant companies. Once identified, all relevant information including images regarding dental implant products was collected even that for discontinued products. A program was then devised using key design factors to enable identification of individual implants. RESULTS: The searches produced details for 87 implant manufacturers based in 21 countries with 231 different implant designs. The resultant program has been successfully trialled and used in both general dental practice and for forensic identification. CONCLUSION: The program developed provides a valuable adjunct to the identification of implant systems present in patients' mouths.