Accuracy of intraoral impressions: a literature review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29166/odontologia.vol23.n2.2021-e3446Keywords:
Data Accuracy, Dimensional Measurement Accuracy, Trueness, Intraoral Digital Impression, Intraoral ScannerAbstract
Intraoral fingerprints can vary in precision and accuracy, depending on the scanner used. These parameters have not been studied in depth. Objective: To analyze and compare the characteristics of accuracy (precision and veracity) of intraoral digital impressions. Materials and methods: A bibliographic search was carried out in Pubmed and Cochcrane to identify relevant studies on accuracy in intraoral digital impressions by means of image superposition, and standard models for unitary fixed prostheses or short arches, the characteristics of the studies were delimited by the PICOS system , recommended by the PRISMA guide. Results: 3 selected studies met all previously established eligibility criteria. The scanners analyzed and their precision and accuracy results in the 3 studies were: Bluecam: 12.7 ± 2.6 um / 17.5 ± 1.8 um, Omnicam: 12.5 ± 3.7 um / 13.8 ± 1.4 um. Carestream 3500: 0.014mm / 13 ± 1, Zfx Intrascan: 0.033mm / 30 ± 10-45, Bluecam: 0.029mm / 22.5 ± 25-30, Omnicam: 0.031mm / 30 ± 32.5-27.5, True definition: 0.011mm / 10 ± 2.5-7.5. E4D dentist: 97.6 ± 109.2 um / 114.2 ± 80.7 um, Fastscan: 26.0 ± 24.4 um / 45.2 ± 29.8 um, iTero: 25.8 ± 22.5 um / 52.1 ± 38.8 um, Trios: 13.0 ± 12.1 / 49.7 ± 36.6 um, Zfx Intrascan : 132.3 ± 124.4 um / 89.4 ± 64.2 um. Conclusions: The selected studies found different values of precision and veracity according to the type of scanner, the ones with the best performance were: In precision: Bluecam, Trios, Carestream 3500. While in veracity they were: True Definition, Omnicam, Fastscan.
Downloads
References
Shimizu S, Shinya A, Kuroda S, Gomi H. The accuracy of the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for designing of fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater J. 2017;36(4):402–7.
Mezzomo E, Makoto R. Rehabilitación Oral Contemporánea. Primera. Vol. uno. Sao Paolo - Brazil: Amolca; 2010. 441 p.
Donovan TE, Chee WW. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent Clin North Am. abril de 2004;48(2):445–70.
Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen C-J, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent [Internet]. 2016 [citado el 12 de marzo de 2016]; Disponible en: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002239131600041X
Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121–128.
Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):44–56.
Pradies G, Zarauz Yánez C. Estudio Comparativo In Vivo de un Sistema de Impresión Convencional con Elastómeros Vs. un Sistema de Impresión Digital (ITero). [Madrid - España]: Universidad Complutense de Madrid; 2012.
Moörmann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:7S–13S.
Mormann W. State of the art of CAD/CAM restorations: 20 years of CEREC. London: Quintessence books; 2006. 1–8 p.
Ting-shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review: Intraoral Digital Impression Review. J Prosthodont. junio de 2015;24(4):313–21.
Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko C-C, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;
http://www.sirona.com/es/actualidad/noticias-y-prensa/odontologia-digital-news-detail/25586/.
Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:1–9.
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health [Internet]. diciembre de 2017 [citado el 29 de agosto de 2018];17(1). Disponible en: https://bmcoralhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
Lee J-J, Jeong I-D, Park J-Y, Jeon J-H, Kim J-H, Kim W-C. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(2):253–259.
Jeong I-D, Lee J-J, Jeon J-H, Kim J-H, Kim H-Y, Kim W-C. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):755–759.
Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. febrero de 2018;69:110–8.
Güth J-F, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. junio de 2017;21(5):1445–55.
Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:101–20.
Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review: Digital vs. Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthodont. enero de 2018;27(1):35–41.
Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsumura H. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci. 2018;60(1):1–7.
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations. Ann Intern Med. el 2 de junio de 2015;162(11):777.
Lee J-J, Jeong I-D, Park J-Y, Jeon J-H, Kim J-H, Kim W-C. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent. febrero de 2017;117(2):253–9.
Güth J-F, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. junio de 2017;21(5):1445–55.
Park J-M. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8(5):354.
Nedelcu RG, Persson ASK. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent. diciembre de 2014;112(6):1461–71.
Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Lauer AW, Patel RB, Ludlow ME, Renne WG. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems. J Esthet Restor Dent. marzo de 2018;30(2):113–8.
Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(1):36–42.
Vecsei B, Joós-Kovács G, Borbély J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems – An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. abril de 2017;61(2):177–84.
Kim J-E, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim J-S. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(6):755–761.
Uhm S-H, Kim J-H, Jiang HB, Woo C-W, Chang M, Kim K-N, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard. Dent Mater J. 2017;36(1):27–34.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 David Gerardo Carrillo Vaca, Jaime Leonardo Astudillo Ortiz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
