ACCURACY OF IMPRESSION AND MODEL OBTAINED FROM DIFFERENT DIGITAL TECHNIQUES IN PARTIAL EDENTULISM IN VIVO
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of data obtained from two intraoral scanners and models fabricated using two 3D printers for maxillary unilateral partial edentulism in vivo.
Methods: The working models were obtained from 20 different participants. The reference datasets were acquired using irreversible hydrocolloid impression material. Two distinct intraoral scanner systems were evaluated: Cerec Omincam (Dentsply Sirona Dental GmBH, Salzburg, Austria) and 3Shape Trios (3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark). Additionally, data extracted from intraoral scanners of cast models with four unilateral missing teeth in the posterior region of the maxillary arch, classified as Kennedy Class III, were obtained using 3D printers with two different production techniques. The Solflex 650 (W2P, Klosterneuburg, Austria), a 3D printer utilizing DLP technique, used Varseo Wax resin (Bego, Bremen, Germany), while the AccuFab-L4D (Shinning, Hangzhou, China), a 3D printer utilizing LCD technique, used Shinning brand resin. Deviation analysis was conducted to assess accuracy using Geomagic 3D image processing software. Statistical analysis was performed using t-test and Kruskal-Wallis test (P < 0.05).
Results: No significant differences were observed in the accuracy of digital impressions among intraoral scanners and 3D printers. However, a significant difference was noted in the z coordinates across all groups where digital production techniques were applied. The highest accuracy value was observed in the model produced with the Trios intraoral scanner and AccuFab-L4D 3D printer, while the lowest accuracy value was found in the model produced with the Cerec intraoral scanner and Solflex 650 3D printer.
Conclusion: The cast models obtained with intraoral scanners and 3D printers in the Kennedy Class III cases demonstrated potential as viable alternatives to study models obtained through conventional techniques.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
Hongqiang Ye, Jing Ning, Man Li, Li Niu, Jian Yang, Yuchun Sun, Yongsheng Zhou Preliminary clinical application of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated using computer-aided design and rapid prototyping techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2017; 30:348–353. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5270
Shah N, Bansal N, Logani A. Recent advances in imaging technologies in dentistry. World J Radiol. 2014; 6:794–807. https://doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v6.i10.794
Tregerman I, Renne W, Kelly A, Wilson D. Evaluation of removable partial denture frameworks fabricated using 3 different techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122:390–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.013
Luthardt R, Weber A, Rudolph H, Schöne C, Quaas S ve Walter M. Design and production of dental prosthetic restorations: basic research on dental CAD/CAM technology. Int J Comput Dent. 2002; 5(2-3):165-176.
Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:1687-94.
Chu SJ, Trushkowsky RD, Paravina RD. Dental color matching instruments and systems. Review of clinical and research aspects. J Dent. 2010; 38:2–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.07.001
Wu J, Li Y, Zhang Y. Use of intraoral scanning and 3-dimensional printing in the fabrication of a removable partial denture for a patient with limited mouth opening. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017; 148:338–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2017.01.022
Logozzo S, Zanetti E M, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A ve Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics–Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Laser Eng. 2014; 54:203-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
Verma, R., Joda, T., Brägger, U., & Wittneben, J. G. A systematic review of the clinical performance of tooth-retained and implant-retained double crown prostheses with a follow-up of ≥ 3 years. J Prosthodont. 2013;22(1):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00905.x
Barazanchi A, Li K.C, Al-Amleh B, Lyons K, Waddell J. N. Additive technology: Update on current materials and applications in dentistry. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26:156–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12510
Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, Wang J, Hou X, Li K, Lu X, Shi H, Lee E. S, Jiang H.B. A Review of 3D Printing in Dentistry: Technologies, Affecting Factors, and Applications. Scanning 2021; e9950131. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9950131.
Tsolakis I.A, Gizani S, Panayi N, Antonopoulos G, Tsolakis A.I. Three-Dimensional Printing Technology in Orthodontics for Dental Models: A Systematic Review. Children 2022;9(8), e1106. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9081106
Reich S, Vollborn T, Mehl A, Zimmermann M. Intraoral optical impression systems an overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(2):143-62.
Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Caponi M, Governi L, Blois L. A Comparative Analysis Of Intraoral 3D Digital Scanners For Restorative Dentistry. J of Med Technology, 2008;5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-022-00416-5
Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence international, 2016;47(4): 343–349. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a35524
Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12218
Tao C, Zhao YJ, Sun YC, Heng MD, Xie QF, Pan SX. Accuracy of intraoral scanning of edentulous jaws with and without resin markers. Chin J Dent Res. 2020; 23:265-271. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.cjdr.b867887
Banjar A, Chen YW, Kostagianni A. Accuracy of 3D Printed Implant Casts Versus Stone Casts: A Comparative Study in the Anterior Maxilla. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(9):783-788. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13335
Diker B, Tak Ö. Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34(1):101-108. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.6834
Igai, F., Junior, W. S., Iegami, C. M., & Neto, P. T. Assessment of different types of intra oral scanners and 3D printers on the accuracy of printed models: An in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021;13(12):1174–1181. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.58765
Joteppa, V., Niras, S., Chokhani, D., Jadhao, T. A., Bandgar, S. T., & Bayaskar, S. G. (2024). Accuracy of 3D Printed Model Acquired from Different Types of Intra Oral Scanners and 3D Printers. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2024;16(Suppl2):1433–1434. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_798_23
Resende CCD, Barbosa TAQ, Moura GF, Tavares LDN, Rizzante FAP, George FM, Neves FDD, Mendonça G. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2): 294–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011.