Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF SIX DIGITAL SCANNERS IN FULL ARCH MAXILLARY SCANS: AN IN VITRO COMPARATIVE STUDY

View through CrossRef
The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of full arch maxillary digital scans produced by six digital scanners. Materials and Methods: A standard model was scanned by a reference scanner to obtain a standard digital reference model. This same model was then scanned ten times by three intraoral scanners and three benchtop scanners, which are: CS3600 (Carestream Health, Rochester, New York, USA), iTero element 2 (Align Technology, San José, California, USA), Trios (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), Ceramill Map 400 (Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Feldkirch district, Austria), Identica T500 (Medit), and Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI (Zirkonzahn, Gais, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Switzerland). To evaluate accuracy and precision, each obtained scan was superimposed on the standard digital model in reverse engineering software, Geomagic Control X (Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA), where a color map was generated and distances between specific points of interest were quantified. A trend report calculated the standard deviation in each of these scans. A one-way analysis of variance and a Games-Howell test were performed to measure deviations. Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS 23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) at a significance level of 5%. Results: The benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400 showed greater accuracy than the intraoral scanners iTero element 2 and Trios, followed by the CS3600 scanner. The benchtop scanners Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI and Identica T500 showed the worst accuracy among all evaluated equipment. The benchtop scanners Ceramill Map 400 and Identica T500 showed better precision, followed by the iTero element 2 and Trios scanners. The intraoral scanner CS3600 presented lower precision compared to these other scanners, but the benchtop scanner Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI had the lowest precision. Conclusion: We conclude from this research that accuracy and precision were directly influenced by the scanner used. The benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400 presented the best accuracy. The benchtop scanners Zirkonzhan S600 ARTI and Identica T500 showed the worst accuracy; the intraoral scanners iTero, Trios, and CS3600 showed intermediate and very similar results in both accuracy and precision; the benchtop scanner Identica T500, which had the worst accuracy performance, along with the benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400, obtained the best precision. The scanner Zirkonzhan
Title: ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF SIX DIGITAL SCANNERS IN FULL ARCH MAXILLARY SCANS: AN IN VITRO COMPARATIVE STUDY
Description:
The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of full arch maxillary digital scans produced by six digital scanners.
Materials and Methods: A standard model was scanned by a reference scanner to obtain a standard digital reference model.
This same model was then scanned ten times by three intraoral scanners and three benchtop scanners, which are: CS3600 (Carestream Health, Rochester, New York, USA), iTero element 2 (Align Technology, San José, California, USA), Trios (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), Ceramill Map 400 (Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Feldkirch district, Austria), Identica T500 (Medit), and Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI (Zirkonzahn, Gais, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Switzerland).
To evaluate accuracy and precision, each obtained scan was superimposed on the standard digital model in reverse engineering software, Geomagic Control X (Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA), where a color map was generated and distances between specific points of interest were quantified.
A trend report calculated the standard deviation in each of these scans.
A one-way analysis of variance and a Games-Howell test were performed to measure deviations.
Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS 23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) at a significance level of 5%.
Results: The benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400 showed greater accuracy than the intraoral scanners iTero element 2 and Trios, followed by the CS3600 scanner.
The benchtop scanners Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI and Identica T500 showed the worst accuracy among all evaluated equipment.
The benchtop scanners Ceramill Map 400 and Identica T500 showed better precision, followed by the iTero element 2 and Trios scanners.
The intraoral scanner CS3600 presented lower precision compared to these other scanners, but the benchtop scanner Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI had the lowest precision.
Conclusion: We conclude from this research that accuracy and precision were directly influenced by the scanner used.
The benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400 presented the best accuracy.
The benchtop scanners Zirkonzhan S600 ARTI and Identica T500 showed the worst accuracy; the intraoral scanners iTero, Trios, and CS3600 showed intermediate and very similar results in both accuracy and precision; the benchtop scanner Identica T500, which had the worst accuracy performance, along with the benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400, obtained the best precision.
The scanner Zirkonzhan.

Related Results

Primerjalna književnost na prelomu tisočletja
Primerjalna književnost na prelomu tisočletja
In a comprehensive and at times critical manner, this volume seeks to shed light on the development of events in Western (i.e., European and North American) comparative literature ...
Access Denied
Access Denied
Introduction As social-distancing mandates in response to COVID-19 restricted in-person data collection methods such as participant observation and interviews, researchers turned t...
Effects of Operator Experience and Scanning Distance on Intraoral Scanner Accuracy
Effects of Operator Experience and Scanning Distance on Intraoral Scanner Accuracy
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of operator experience and scanning distance on the accuracy of the intraoral scanner in terms of trueness and precision. Material and ...
Intervention of arch support: A quantitative study
Intervention of arch support: A quantitative study
Hallux valgus is a common foot deformity characterized by hypermobility of the first metatarsal ray. The lower longitudinal arch is an intrinsic factor related to the lateral drift...
Comparative Evaluation of Digital Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Posterior Implant and Tooth Scans
Comparative Evaluation of Digital Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Posterior Implant and Tooth Scans
Aim: This study evaluates the digital accuracy of posterior implant scans and contralateral molar tooth scans obtained with three different intraoral scanners. Materials and Method...
In-plane bearing capacity analysis of concrete catenary arch with rigid skeleton: test and simulation
In-plane bearing capacity analysis of concrete catenary arch with rigid skeleton: test and simulation
Abstract Although the rigid skeleton concrete arch has been widely used in engineering, the research on the failure mode and bearing capacity of this kind of arch is very...
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of the dental arch display using modern intraoral three-dimensional scanners
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of the dental arch display using modern intraoral three-dimensional scanners
BACKGROUND: At present, modern dentists used dental intraoral three-dimensional (3D) scanners routinely in their daily work. Obtaining an optical 3D image of the teeth and dentitio...

Back to Top