Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions - an in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans. METHODS: An experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure. RESULTS: In the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ±71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Scanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Scanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.

The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions.

PURPOSE: This study is aimed to evaluate the effect of generation change on accuracy of IOSs on full-arch scans and the inter-operator reliability. METHODS: In this study, 6 different IOS were tested: 3Shape Trios 3 (20.1.2.), 3Shape Trios 4 (20.1.1.), Medit i500 (2.3.6.), Medit i700 (2.4.6.), Planmeca Emerald (6.0.1.) and Planmeca Emerald S (6.0.1.). Eighteen dental students, inexperienced in scanning, took part in this study as operators. Each operator made 10 digital impressions; altogether, 30 impressions were made by each scanner. The 30 STL files were imported to the Geomagic Control X program, where they were compared to a reference STL file; the surface point's deviation of the full arch and the distance between the second molars' distobuccal cusps were measured, the inter-operator reliability was also investigated. RESULTS: A significant increase in accuracy was found between Trios 3 and 4 in the case of both parameters and between Medit i500 and i700 in the case of full arch. There was no significant difference between Planmeca generations. In case of the inter-operator reliability no significant difference was detected. CONCLUSION: Within this current study's limitation, it can be concluded that surface digitalization's accuracy can be modified with generation changes and that digital technology is less technique sensitive than traditional impression taking.

The impact of software updates on accuracy of intraoral scanners.

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.