Influence of Intraoral Scanners, Operators, and Data Processing on Dimensional Accuracy of Dental Casts for Unsupervised Clinical Machine Learning: An In Vitro Comparative Study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Farook T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10686707 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11675224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to two-dimensionally evaluate deviation errors at five digital cross-sections of single-tooth abutment in regards to data obtained from two intraoral scanners, and to evaluate accuracy of individual scanners. Two intraoral scanners, the Trios 3® (3 Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and EzScan® (Vatech, Hwaseong, Korea), were evaluated by utilizing 13 stone models. The superimposed 3D data files were sectioned into five different planes: buccal-lingual section (BL), mesial-distal section (MD), transverse high section (TH), transverse middle section (TM), and transverse low section (TL). Accuracy comparison between the two scanners in 5 groups was performed. BL vs. MD of each scanner, and three transverse groups (TH, TM, TL) of each scanner were analyzed for accuracy comparison. In comparison of 2-D analyses for two intraoral scanners, Trios 3® showed statistically significant higher accuracy in root mean square (RMS) at BL, TH, and TL (p < 0.05). For each scanner, RMS value showed that mesial-distal sections were more prone to error than buccal-lingual section, which exhibited statistically significant errors (p < 0.05) while the transverse groups did not. Two-dimensional analysis is more insightful than three-dimensional analysis on single-tooth abutment. In mesiodistal areas, rough prepped areas, and sharp edges where scanner accessibility is difficult, high deviation errors are shown.
| S-EPMC6466129 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digital dental models provide a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of orthodontic cases. Although this technique is quite promising, there are few three-dimensional measurements methods described in the literature.The aim of this study was to propose a method for assessing the degree of mandibular anterior dental crowding in the three planes of space, using digital dental models.Thirty dental casts were selected and scanned by Maestro 3D Dental Scanner and imported by Geomagic Qualify 2013 software. The degree of crowding was calculated by two examiners, based on the Little's Irregularity Index, by means of the definition of axial, coronal and sagittal planes for each model. Intraexaminer analysis was performed with Dahlberg's Formula (DF) and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and interexaminer analysis was performed with ICC and paired t-test.The ICC showed an excellent agreement (p < 0.05) for all measurements, except for the intraexaminer and interexaminer in the Z-axis, in which it was found a moderate agreement. The DF showed a satisfactory accuracy with all measurements showing less than 1 mm difference. The paired t-test showed statistical difference between the examiners in two measurements, although it was clinical irrelevant.When comparing the three planes of space, the Z-axis showed the greatest variation in landmarks placement; however, overall, the present method seems precise and reproducible.
| S-EPMC5525447 | biostudies-other
Project description:The use of digital technology has exponentially increased over recent years. Intraoral scanners, especially, have gained traction within orthodontics. The objective of the present review is to investigate the available evidence to create an up-to-date presentation of various clinical aspects of intraoral scanners in orthodontics. Search without restrictions in seven databases (Pubmed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, Proquest) since inception, and hand searching until October 2020, were conducted. The majority of studies were either cross-over or parallel group studies. The accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scanners, in comparison to conventional methods, were investigated in several studies, with controversial results. The duration of the procedure did not report any clear outcome in favor of any method. Patients seem to prefer intraoral scanning, even though numerous studies point out the importance of operators' experience and skills. Despite the innovations that intraoral scanners have brought in orthodontic clinical practice, there are still some challenges and limitations in their use. The majority of existing limitations may be overcome with experience and good clinical skills. More high-quality studies need to be conducted so that clinicians can have a clear image of this new technology.
| S-EPMC8834929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch scans acquired using five intraoral scanners and investigate the factors associated with the dimensional accuracy of the intraoral scan data.MethodsNine adult participants (mean age, 34.3 ± 8.3 years) were recruited. Four zirconium spheres (Ø 6 mm) were bonded to the canines and the molars. Following acquisition of reference scans using an industrial-grade scanner, five intraoral scanners, namely i500, CS3600, Trios 3, iTero, and CEREC Omnicam, were used to scan the arches. Linear distances between the four reference spheres were automatically calculated, and linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare the trueness and precision of the intraoral scan data among the different scanners.ResultsThe absolute mean trueness and precision values for all intraoral scanners were 76.6 ± 79.3 and 56.6 ± 52.4 μm, respectively. The type of scanner and the measured linear distances had significant effects on the accuracy of the intraoral scan data. With regard to trueness, errors in the intermolar dimension and the distance from the canine to the contralateral molar were greater with Omnicam than with the other scanners. With regard to precision, the error in the linear distance from the canine to the molar in the same quadrant was greater with Omnicam and CS3600 than with the other scanners.ConclusionsThe dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.
| S-EPMC7940805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:This study evaluated the reliability and validity of one extraoral [Ortho Insight 3D™ (Motionview Software, Hixson, TN/USA)] and two intraoral [ITero™ (Align Technologies, San Jose, CA/USA) and Lythos™ (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA/USA)] scanners. METHODS:Fifteen dry human mandibles were scanned twice with each of the scanners, and digital models were generated. Five measurements were made on the dry mandibles and on each of the generated models, including intermolar width, intercanine width, posterior arch length, premolar crown diameter, and canine height. Systematic and random errors were evaluated based on replicate analyses. Differences were assessed using paired Student's t tests. RESULTS:Replicate analyses showed statistically significant systematic errors for only one measure (intermolar width measured from Ortho Insight 3D scans). Measurements taken from all three scanners were highly reliable, with intraclass correlations ranging from .926 to .999. Method errors were all less than 0.25 mm (averaged ? 0.12 mm). Posterior arch length and canine height were significantly smaller when measured on the Ortho Insight 3D scans than when measured on the dry mandibles and significantly smaller than when measured from the ITero and Lythos models. CONCLUSIONS:While all three scanners produced reliable measures, Ortho Insight 3D systematically underestimated arch length and canine height.
| S-EPMC4623872 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials.Materials and methodsImpressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans.ResultsCompared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques.ConclusionsOptical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions.
| S-EPMC7046187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article compares the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) used in the digital impression of full arches to fabricate implant-supported complete prostheses. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/CPM9K). Six electronic databases, gray literature databases, and a manual search were performed in April 2022. Studies that evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scan impressions compared with conventional impressions in full-arch impressions were included for complete implant-supported prostheses. In addition, an adapted checklist for reporting in vitro studies was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects Hunter- Schmidt model. Nine studies were included in the analysis. IOS impressions present higher accuracy (137.86 μm) than conventional impressions (182.51 μm) (p<0.001). The heterogeneity of the study's methodology was I2¼18.34. However, impression accuracy varies significantly with scan body type, IOS type, scanning strategy, and modification technique. For most IOS systems, the acceptable clinical threshold of linear accuracy of 200 μm can be achieved, except for the True Definition Scanner in one of the studies. Based on the results of the included studies, digital impressions using IOS present similar or better linear accuracy than conventional impression techniques.
| S-EPMC10756734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIntraoral scanners (IOS) are continuing to gain popularity in clinical dentistry, replacing the traditional impression-taking and related technology. Despite their increasing importance, there are few data on the utility and usage of IOS amongst dentists. This study investigates the user experience of IOS technology as well as the perceived quality of a variety of IOS used by dental clinicians worldwide.MethodsAn online survey of 1072 dentists was conducted to elicit data on the number of individual IOS used, their accessibility, the maintenance fees, and the programmes used. The first part of the questionnaire included demographic data and related questions, whilst the second part focussed on the specific IOS used by the respondents and the satisfaction with their scanners.ResultsWe surveyed 1072 respondents from 109 different countries. More than three-quarters of the survey cohort (78.8%) use IOS in their daily work, whilst 21.17% do not. The average number of scanners owned by the respondents was 1.5 (±0.9), and in total, the cohort used 36 different types of IOS. More than one-third (38.6%) of the respondents used computer-aided design (CAD) software as well. As for the frequency of IOS usage, 51.5% used the system on a daily basis, 28.2% did so 2 to 3 times a week, and 10.0% did so once a week. Overall, the top 3 IOS used by the cohort were Medit i700 followed by wireless Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona Primescan.ConclusionsThis study describes, for the first time, the IOS user experience in an international cohort. More than 75% of the respondents used IOS on a daily basis in their practice, whilst Medit and Dentsply Sirona brands were the most popular scanners amongst the group. It appears that digital impression-taking technology is universal, and digital workflow in dentistry will continue to grow.
| S-EPMC10509442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, awareness, and practice of intraoral scanners (IOS) and the factors affecting their accuracy amongst dental interns and practitioners.MethodsThis was an observational cross-sectional study in which data was collected from a representative population in Saudi Arabia, with the help of online questionnaires. The forms were distributed to 500 dental interns and practitioners and the questionnaire's validity and reliability were evaluated for vetting and remarks. The questionnaire consisted of three parts: the participants' demographic details, questions on the awareness and knowledge of participants regarding IOS, and the factors affecting the accuracy in clinical use of IOS. Questions were to be answered with 'yes', 'no' and 'I don't know'. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using the control chart technique and the chi-squared test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.ResultsMost of the participants (58%) knew about the IOS and its applications (47.5%), but the majority of the participants did not use IOS in their clinics (43.5%). The majority of males (57.39%) and females (50.86%) strongly agreed that cost was a barrier to purchasing an IOS. To better get more knowledge on IOS, the specialists 66 (16.5%) and interns 54 (13.5%) chose continuing dental education programs and workshops. There was a significant association (p < 0.05) of knowledge and awareness, perception, and factors affecting parameters with different categories and years of experience.ConclusionWithin the limitations of this study, most participants had a positive stance towards IOS but due to inadequate knowledge and understanding, its use and applications were minimal. IOS was well-received regardless of operator training and experience. There is a significant need to increase awareness of this concept, as it may increase treatment efficiency and effectiveness.
| S-EPMC11524012 | biostudies-literature