See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336722330

Accuracy and Learning Curve of 4 Intraoral Digital Scanners When Used By a Novice User. In-Vivo 3D Analysis

Poster · October 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22614.60483

CITATIONS READS

0 76

5 authors, including:

Clotilde Austoni Maria Giulia Pulcini

University of Milan Università degli Studi di Milano
18 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Carlo Alberto Vitelli on 22 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Accuracy and Learning Curve of 4 Intraoral Digital Scanners When Used By a Novice User. In-Vivo 3D Analysis
𝐏𝐔𝐋𝐂𝐈𝐍𝐈 Maria Giulia1∗ , 𝐕𝐈𝐓𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐈 Carlo2 , 𝐃𝐈𝐀𝐍 Arturo1 , 𝐑𝐀𝐃𝐀𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐈 Katherine1 , 𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐍𝐈 Clotilde2
1. IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Centre of Minimally Invasive, Esthetic and Digital Oral Rehabilitation (Cromed)
2. Centre of Dental Traumatology and Rehabilitation (Coir)
Head: Prof. Francetti Luca Angelo; contact: matteo.basso@unimi.it

BACKGROUND
Intraoral scanners are described as precise and user-friendly tools, even for less experienced professionals. Digital impressions over implants and scan abutments are nowadays a
common procedure, and intraoral scanners already demonstrated to be a reliable choice for obtaining precise 3D models for the majority of procedures. However, little data is currently
available on the ability of these devices to produce precise and reliable images for clinical use, expecially in unexperienced hands.
AIM
4 digital scanner A) AADVA iOS100, GC Corporation; B) Emerald, Planmeca; C) Trios 2, 3Shape; D) CS3600, Carestream, have been used in this trial. This study aims to evaluate the
precision and accuracy of different intraoral scanners used by a young dentist who never used digital impression device.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single patient was selected as an in vivo scan model. 3 reference points were placed on the patient's teeth in upper left arch. 5 scans of the arch were performed by a
single operator with poor experience in using digital scanners, respecting manufaturer’s instructions. Scan time and number of interruptions and post processing time
have been recorded. The distances between the 3 reference points present on each 3D model were measured by 3 different operators using Final Surface ™ software.
Mean, standard deviation, minimum, median and maximum, absolute and relative frequencies, a one way ANOVA and Dunnett test has been applied.
RESULTS
The average scan time was 3’57" for IOS100 (average 3,6 interruptions per scan), 2'01" for CS3600 (0,2 interruptions), 2’23" for Trios3 (0,4 interruptions), 2’15" for
Emerald (1,6 interruptions). IOS100 proved to be the fastest in preparing the model (post-processing) with 18,4", followed by Emerald (21,8") Trios2 (23,4”) and CS3600
(33,8"). Repeatability of the scans was very high since little standard deviations were reported between each set of 5 scans. No statistical differences were reported
between different devices.
CONCLUSIONS
All tested devices seemed to be equally accurate and precise and suitable implant and prosthetic procedures, even if used by a less experienced operator. IOS100 seemed
to be the slowest in scanning time, but the most manageable, being the smallest and the most comfortable for the patient, giving good access even in posterior areas.
CS3600 had the easiest scanning procedure, together with Trios2, but this last is the heaviest (750 g instead of 200-300 g of the others) and less manageable due to the
shape of the device. Trios2 reported to be less tolerated by the patient due to squared edges of the tip pressing on cheeks. Emerald was quick in scanning, but seemed
not efficient on sharp cusps, which appeared more difficult to scan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015; 46(1):9–17.
2. Ng J1, Ruse D2, Wyatt C3. Comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):555-60.

View publication stats