Use of Intraoral Scanners for Full Dental Arches: Could Different Strategies or Overlapping Software Affect Accuracy?

Luigi Vito Stefanelli, Alessio Franchina, Andrea Pranno, Gerardo Pellegrino, Agnese Ferri, Nicola Pranno, Stefano Di Carlo and Francesca De Angelis
Additional contact information
Luigi Vito Stefanelli: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy
Alessio Franchina: Private Practice, Via Legione Gallieno 44, 36100 Vicenza, Italy
Andrea Pranno: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Rende, Italy
Gerardo Pellegrino: Unit of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, 40121 Bologna, Italy
Agnese Ferri: Unit of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, 40121 Bologna, Italy
Nicola Pranno: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy
Stefano Di Carlo: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy
Francesca De Angelis: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 19, 1-13

Abstract: Objectives: The use of digital devices is strongly influencing the dental rehabilitation workflow both for single-crown rehabilitation and for full-arch prosthetic treatments. Methods: In this study, trueness was analyzed by overlapping the scan dataset made with Medit I-500 (by using two different tips and two different scan strategies) with the scan dataset made with lab scanning, and the values of the (90°–10°)/2 method were reported. Precision was evaluated by using the same values of trueness coming from the intra-group overlapping (scan dataset made with an IOS overlapped and compared to each other). Moreover, two different software programs of overlapping were used to calculate accuracy values. Results: The mean difference of trueness was 26.61 ± 5.07 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using a new design of the tip, 37.99 ± 4.94 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip, and 51.22 ± 6.57 µm with a new strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip. The mean difference of precision was 23.57 ± 5.77 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using a new design of the tip, 38.34 ± 11.39 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip, and 46.93 ± 7.15 µm with a new strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip. No difference was found in the trueness and precision data extracted using the two different programs of superimposition Geomagic Control X and Medit Compare. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study showed that the latest version of I-Medit 500 with the use of a new tip seems to be promising in terms of accuracy when a full arch needs to be scanned. Moreover, Medit Compare, which is an application of Medit IOS software, can be used to calculate IOS accuracy.

Keywords: intraoral scanner; digital impression; digital dentistry; trueness; precision; accuracy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/9946/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/19/9946/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:19:p:9946-:d:640327

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().