Factors Affecting Trueness of Intraoral Scans: An Update
Source abstract
Abstract
Background: Intraoral scanning (IOS) technologies have been constantly developed and improved. This systematic review aimed at assessing studies in the recent literature describing factors that influence the trueness of intraoral scans. Methods: Comparative in vitro and in vivo (i.e., interventional and observational) studies that quantitatively assessed the trueness of intraoral scans and that identified factors significantly affecting IOS trueness values were considered eligible for inclusion. The PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published in the last two years (from February 2020 to February 2022). Data assessment and extraction were performed according to the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. Results: The present search strategy yielded 13 publications. An initial screening of the publications was performed using abstracts and key words, and after application of exclusion criteria, a total of nine studies were finally identified as eligible to be discussed. Several factors significantly affecting IOS were identified. Conclusions: Studies using current IOS technologies revealed that the device, scanning distance, operator experience, rescanning and post-processing scans, conditions of the preparations and presence of adjacent teeth are factors significantly affecting IOS trueness.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental Radiography and Imaging · Dental Research and COVID-19
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Faculty of Dental Surgery, University of Malta, 2080 Msida, Malta
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. Fully Digital Workflow with Magnetically Connected Guides for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation Following Guided Alveolar Ridge Reduction10.1111/jopr.13150 ↗
2. Full digital workflow for anterior immediate implants using custom abutments10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00249 ↗
3. Digital workflow for full-arch implant-supported prosthesis based on intraoral scans of a relative of the patient10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00095 ↗
4. Costa, A.J.M.E., Burgoa, S., Pinhata-Baptista, O.H., Gutierrez, V., and Cortes, A.R.G. (J. Prosthet Dent., 2021). Digital workflow for image-guided immediate implant placement by using the socket-shield technique and custom abutment in the esthetic area, J. Prosthet Dent., in press.
5. Three dimensionally printed surgical guides for removing fixation screws from onlay bone grafts in flapless implant surgeries10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.022 ↗
6. Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing Milling of Allogeneic Blocks Following Three-Dimensional Maxillofacial Graft Planning10.1097/SCS.0000000000005353 ↗
7. Digital workflow for alveolar ridge preservation with equine-derived bone graft and subsequent implant rehabilitation: A case report10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00060 ↗
8. Full digital workflow for crown lengthening by using a single surgical guide10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.027 ↗
9. Trueness, 3D Deviation, Time and Cost Comparisons Between Milled and 3D-Printed Resin Single Crowns
10. Effect of varying levels of expertise on the reliability and reproducibility of the digital waxing of single crowns: A preliminary in vitro study10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.10.007 ↗
11. Influence of Gingival Contour on Marginal Fit of CAD-CAM Zirconia Copings on Implant Stock Abutments
12. Markarian, R.A., Vasconcelos, E., Kim, J.H., Attard, N.J., and Cortes, A.R.G. (Int. J. Prosthodont., 2021). Effect of different milling devices on marginal fit of cad-cam zirconia copings on implant stock abutments, Int. J. Prosthodont., in press.10.11607/ijp.7069 ↗
13. Morsy, N., El Kateb, M., Azer, A., and Fathalla, S. (J. Prosthet. Dent., 2021). Fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J. Prosthet. Dent., in press.
14. Nedelcu, R., Olsson, P., Nystrom, I., and Thor, A. (2018). Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: An in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health, 18.10.1186/s12903-018-0489-3 ↗
15. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.021 ↗
16. Schmidt, A., Klussmann, L., Wöstmann, B., and Schlenz, M.A. (2020). Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update. J. Clin. Med., 9.10.3390/jcm9030688 ↗
17. OpenGrey.eu [Internet] (2018, January 23). Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex: System for information on Grey Literature in Europe. Available online: http://www.opengrey.eu.
18. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., and PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med., 6.10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 ↗
19. Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners10.1111/jopr.13202 ↗
20. Kim, J.H., Son, S.A., Lee, H., Yoo, Y.J., Hong, S.J., and Park, J.K. (J. Esthet. Restor. Dent., 2021). Influence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems for class II inlay preparation, J. Esthet. Restor. Dent., in press.10.1111/jerd.12824 ↗
21. Trueness of full-arch IO scans estimated based on 3D translational and rotational deviations of single teeth-an in vitro study10.1007/s00784-021-04309-5 ↗
22. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011 ↗
23. Accuracy of intraoral scans of edentulous jaws with different generations of intraoral scanners compared to laboratory scans10.4047/jap.2021.13.5.316 ↗
24. Kernen, F., Schlager, S., Seidel Alvarez, V., Mehrhof, J., Vach, K., Kohal, R., Nelson, K., and Flügge, T. (J. Prosthet. Dent., 2021). Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices, J. Prosthet. Dent., in press.10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.007 ↗
25. Revilla-León, M., Quesada-Olmo, N., Gómez-Polo, M., Sicilia, E., Farjas-Abadia, M., and Kois, J.C. (J. Dent., 2021). Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study, J. Dent., in press.10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103851 ↗
26. Kontis, P., Güth, J.F., and Keul, C. (Clin. Oral Investig., 2022). Accuracy of full-arch digitalization for partially edentulous jaws—A laboratory study on basis of coordinate-based data analysis, Clin. Oral Investig., in press.10.1007/s00784-022-04418-9 ↗
27. Revilla-León, M., Sicilia, E., Agustín-Panadero, R., Gómez-Polo, M., and Kois, J.C. (J. Prosthet. Dent., 2022). Clinical evaluation of the effects of cutting off, overlapping, and rescanning procedures on intraoral scanning accuracy, J. Prosthet. Dent., in press.10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.10.017 ↗
28. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: A systematic review10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.015 ↗
29. Cortes, A.R.G. (2022). Digital Dentistry: A Step-by-Step Guide and Case Atlas, Wiley Blackwell. [1st ed.].10.1002/9781119852025 ↗
30. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: An in vitro study