Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital impression of simulated implant scan bodies in a partially edentulous model. A 3D printed partially edentulous mandible model made of Co-Cr with a total of 6 bilaterally positioned cylinders in the canine,...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ryan Jin-Young Kim, Goran I Benic, Ji-Man Park
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222070
id doaj-5733e59197de4da394d2df211f4fa536
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5733e59197de4da394d2df211f4fa5362021-03-03T21:14:32ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-011411e022207010.1371/journal.pone.0222070Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.Ryan Jin-Young KimGoran I BenicJi-Man ParkThe aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital impression of simulated implant scan bodies in a partially edentulous model. A 3D printed partially edentulous mandible model made of Co-Cr with a total of 6 bilaterally positioned cylinders in the canine, second premolar, and second molar area served as the study model. Digital scans of the model were made with a reference scanner (steroSCAN neo) and 5 IOSs (CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, i500, iTero Element, and TRIOS 3) (n = 10). For each IOS's dataset, the XYZ coordinates of the cylinders were obtained from the reference point and the deviations from the reference scanner were calculated using a 3D reverse engineering program (Rapidform). The trueness values were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney post hoc test. Direction and amount of deviation differed among cylinder position and among IOSs. Regardless of the IOS type, the cylinders positioned on the left second molar, nearest to the scanning start point, showed the smallest deviation. The deviation generally increased further away from scanning start point towards the right second molar. TRIOS 3 and i500 outperformed the other IOSs for partially edentulous digital impression. The accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, and iTero Element were similar on the left side, but they showed more deviations on the right side of the arch when compared to the other IOSs. The accuracy of IOS is still an area that needs to be improved.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222070
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ryan Jin-Young Kim
Goran I Benic
Ji-Man Park
spellingShingle Ryan Jin-Young Kim
Goran I Benic
Ji-Man Park
Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Ryan Jin-Young Kim
Goran I Benic
Ji-Man Park
author_sort Ryan Jin-Young Kim
title Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.
title_short Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.
title_full Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.
title_fullStr Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.
title_full_unstemmed Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.
title_sort trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description The aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital impression of simulated implant scan bodies in a partially edentulous model. A 3D printed partially edentulous mandible model made of Co-Cr with a total of 6 bilaterally positioned cylinders in the canine, second premolar, and second molar area served as the study model. Digital scans of the model were made with a reference scanner (steroSCAN neo) and 5 IOSs (CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, i500, iTero Element, and TRIOS 3) (n = 10). For each IOS's dataset, the XYZ coordinates of the cylinders were obtained from the reference point and the deviations from the reference scanner were calculated using a 3D reverse engineering program (Rapidform). The trueness values were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney post hoc test. Direction and amount of deviation differed among cylinder position and among IOSs. Regardless of the IOS type, the cylinders positioned on the left second molar, nearest to the scanning start point, showed the smallest deviation. The deviation generally increased further away from scanning start point towards the right second molar. TRIOS 3 and i500 outperformed the other IOSs for partially edentulous digital impression. The accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, and iTero Element were similar on the left side, but they showed more deviations on the right side of the arch when compared to the other IOSs. The accuracy of IOS is still an area that needs to be improved.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222070
work_keys_str_mv AT ryanjinyoungkim truenessofdigitalintraoralimpressioninreproducingmultipleimplantposition
AT goranibenic truenessofdigitalintraoralimpressioninreproducingmultipleimplantposition
AT jimanpark truenessofdigitalintraoralimpressioninreproducingmultipleimplantposition
_version_ 1714817936584081408