Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience
Available online 8 July 2017
Abstract
Statement of problem
Because
the digital workflow can begin directly in the oral cavity, intraoral
scanners are being adopted in dental treatments. However, studies of the
relationship between the experience of the practitioner and the
accuracy of impression data are needed.
Purpose
The
purpose of this clinical study was to investigate the effect of the
experience curve on changes in trueness when a patient’s complete dental
arch is scanned.
Material and methods
Twenty
dental hygienists with more than 3 years of experience in dental
clinical practice (group 1 had 3 to 5 years; group 2 had >6 years)
were recruited to learn to operate 2 intraoral scanner systems. All
learners scanned the assigned patient’s oral cavity 10 times during the
experience sessions. Precision was calculated as the mean deviation
among all superimposition combinations from the 10 scanned data sets of
each learner [n=10C2=45]. Trueness was evaluated
by superimposing the 10 consecutive intraoral scan data onto the
impression scan data from each patient’s rubber impression body (n=10).
The acquired images were processed and analyzed using a 3-dimensional
analysis software. For statistical analysis, the independent 2-sample t test and repeated measures ANOVA were performed (α=.05).
Results
The mean precision of the Trios scanner was greater than that of the iTero (Trios, 52.30 μm; iTero, 60.46 μm; P<.01). The iTero group showed an improvement in trueness upon repeated experience (P<.05), whereas the Trios group did not (P>.05).
In the iTero group but not in the Trios group, the length of clinical
experience influenced the change of trueness as a result of repeated
experience (P<.05). In terms of the scanned region, the
results for trueness were better for the maxillary arch than the
mandibular arch with repeated scanning in the iTero group (P<.05).
Conclusions
The
single-image based system required repeated learning sessions for
effective clinical application. The newer system offered better trueness
and precision and was less likely to be influenced by the length of
clinical career or the region being scanned.
Comments