Severe anaphylactic reaction after intracameral antibiotic administration during cataract surgery.

J. Villada,Ubaldo Vicente,J. Javaloy,J. Alió

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCRS.2004.06.086

2005-03-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

Marta Revilla-León,Miguel Gómez-Polo,Abdul B Barmak,Burak Yilmaz,John C Kois,Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.03.017

2024-04-18

Abstract:Statement of problem: Multiple factors can influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). However, the impact of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of IOSs for fabricating tooth-supported crowns remains uncertain. Purpose: The purpose of the present in vitro study was to measure the influence of scan extension (half or complete arch scan) and the starting quadrant (same quadrant or contralateral quadrant of the location of the crown preparation) on the accuracy of four IOSs. Material and methods: A typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710) to obtain a reference scan. Four scanner groups were created: TRIOS 5, PrimeScan, i700, and iTero. Then, 3 subgroups were defined based on the scan extension and starting quadrant: half arch (HA subgroup), complete arch scan starting on the left quadrant (CA-same subgroup), and complete arch scan starting on the right quadrant (CA-contralateral subgroup), (n=15). The reference scan was used as a control to measure the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the tooth preparation, margin of the tooth preparation, and adjacent tooth areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05). Results: For the tooth preparation analysis, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.002). The iTero and TRIOS5 groups obtained better trueness than the PrimeScan and i700 groups (P<.001). Moreover, half arch scans obtained the best trueness, while the CA-contralateral scans obtained the worst trueness (P<.001). The iTero group showed the worst precision among the IOSs tested. For the margin of the tooth preparation evaluation, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The iTero group obtained best trueness (P<.001), but the worst precision (P<.001) among the IOSs tested. Half arch scans obtained the best trueness and precision values. For the adjacent tooth analysis, trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best trueness and precision. Half arch scans obtained the best accuracy. Conclusions: Scan extension and the starting quadrant impacted the scanning trueness and precision of the IOSs tested. Additionally, the IOSs showed varying scanning discrepancies depending on the scanning area assessed. Half arch scans presented the highest trueness and precision, and the complete arch scans in which the scan started in the contralateral quadrant of where the crown preparation was obtained the worst trueness and precision.
Comparison of Intraoral Scanning Modes in Three Distinct Full- Arch Digital Implant Impression Scenarios: An In Vitro Study

Taygun Sezer,Erkan Yılmaz,Emir Esim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10882

2024-05-17

Abstract:Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of scanning modes on the accuracy of the Trios for full-arch digital implant impressions. Materials and methods: The trueness and precision of the intraoral scanning mode (IOSM) and the intraoral edentulous scanning mode (IOEM) of the Trios were evaluated in three edentulous models, each featuring 4, 6, and 8 implant analogues. Reference scanning data were obtained by scanning each model with a desktop scanner. Each model was scanned 10 times using the IOSM and IOEM modes of the Trios to establish the test groups. The scan bodies in the test and reference scans were isolated and exported in the reverse engineering program. The scan bodies in each group were superimposed with the corresponding reference scan (trueness) or with each other (precision). The overall 3D deviation between the aligned scan bodies was computed by the root-meansquare (RMS) values. Results: As a result of the trueness and precision evaluation, no significant difference was found between scanning modes in any of the models. When comparing models, the 8-implant model showed significantly lower trueness than the 4-implant model. However, it also exhibited significantly higher precision when compared to both the 4-implant and 6-implant models. There were no significant differences in other pairwise comparisons between the models. Conclusion: Trueness and precision values were similar between the IOSM and IOEM groups across all the models. An increase in the number of implants in complete edentulous arches may have a negative impact on digital impression accuracy.
Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: an in Vitro Study.

Xin Yue Zhang,Yue Cao,Zhe Wen Hu,Yong Wang,Hu Chen,Yu Chun Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3290/j.cjdr.b3317959

2022-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of 10 intraoral scanners for single-crown and three-unit preparation models.Methods: A maxillary partially edentulous model was fabricated. A dental cast scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) data. Ten intraoral scanners, namely Trios 2 (TR2; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), True Definition (TD; 3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA), CERECAC Omnicam (OM; Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), Organical Scan Oral (OS; R+K, Berlin, Germany), PlanScan (PS; Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland), DWIOP (DW; Dental Wings, Montreal, Canada), Xianlin (XL; Hangzhou Xianlin, Hangzhou, China), DL-100 (DL; Guangzhou Longcheng, Guangzhou, China), Trios 3 (TR3; 3Shape) and i500 (MD; MEDIT, Seoul, South Korea) were used to obtain stereolithography data as test groups. Trueness, pre-cision and surface accuracy were evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software. One tooth with a three-unit preparation for each test group was registered with the reference scan data, and the absolute distance from another tooth was calculated as the abso-lute accuracy. The data were analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (cc = 0.05).Results: The best trueness, precision and surface accuracy of scanning single crown prepar-ation were recorded with TD (trueness 2.9 pm and precision 1.9 pm) and XL (surface accur-acy 20.3 & PLUSMN; 2.9 sum). The best trueness, precision, surface accuracy and absolute accuracy of three-unit preparations were recorded with TD (2.6 pm), XL (1.9 pm), OM (27.1 & PLUSMN; 5.2 pm) and TR3 (79.2 & PLUSMN; 19.6 pm), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in trueness between single-and multiple-unit preparations for any of the intraoral scanners (P > 0.05). A statistically significant difference in the surface accuracy between single and multiple prep-arations was found for TR2, TD, OM, DW, XL, DL and MD (P < 0.05).Conclusion: The trueness and precision of intraoral scanners for scanning three-unit prepar-ations were nearly the same as those for single-crown preparations; however, with the excep-tion of OS, PS and TR3, the surface accuracy of single-crown preparations was significantly better than that for three-unit preparations.
Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Different Scan Patterns for Full-Arch Digital Implant Impressions

Taygun Sezer,Emir Esim,Erkan Yılmaz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-24-00054

2024-08-01

Journal of Oral Implantology

Abstract:The optimal scan pattern for full-arch digital implant impressions remains to be determined. This study aimed to analyze the effects of different scan patterns on the trueness of intraoral scanners for full-arch digital implant impressions. A maxillary plaster model with 4 implant analogs was employed as the master model. Scan bodies were attached to the master model and scanned with a laboratory scanner to obtain reference data. Test scans were obtained using 3 different scan patterns with Cerec Primescan and Trios 3. Each test datum was superimposed onto the reference data. The trueness was assessed by determining the 3D distance and angular deviations between the test and reference data. Significant differences in 3D distance deviation were detected among the scan patterns for both scanners. Significant differences in angle deviation were detected among the scan patterns for the Cerec Primescan, whereas it was not substantial for the Trios 3. Cerec Primescan exhibited superior trueness across all scan patterns compared with Trios 3. The zigzag pattern resulted in more accurate scans for the Cerec Primescan, whereas both the zigzag and occlusal-palatal-buccal patterns showed higher accuracy for the Trios 3.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Carpal tunnel syndrome. A new feature in the natural history of TOS?

E. Estirado de Cabo,M. Posada de la Paz,P. de Andrés Copa,Mar del Mar Plaza Cano,M. L. García De Aguinaga,C. Suárez Alvarez,B. Braun Saro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025899506009

European Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:
Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Inactivity among Older Adults in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

A. M. R. Souza,G. Fillenbaum,S. Blay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117060

IF: 3.7

2015-02-20

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Current information on the epidemiology of physical inactivity among older adults is lacking, making it difficult to target the inactive and to plan for interventions to ameliorate adverse effects. Objectives To present statewide representative findings on the prevalence of physical inactivity among older community residents, its correlates and associated health service use. Methods A representative non-institutionalized random sample of 6963 individuals in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, aged ≥60 years, was interviewed face-to-face. Information was obtained on demographic characteristics, social resources, health conditions and behaviors, health service use, and physical inactivity. Controlled logistic regression was used to determine the association of physical inactivity with these characteristics. Results Overall, 62% reported no regular physical activity. Physical inactivity was significantly more prevalent among women, older persons, those with lower education and income, Afro-Brazilians (73%; White: 61%; “other”: 64%), those no longer married, and was associated with multiple individual health conditions and impaired activities of daily living (ADL). In adjusted analyses, associations remained for sociodemographic characteristics, social participation, impaired self-rated health, ADL, vision, and depression (odds ratios (OR) 1.2–1.7). Physically inactive respondents were less likely to report outpatient visits (OR 0.81), but more likely to be hospitalized (OR 1.41). Conclusions Physical inactivity is highly prevalent, particularly among Afro -Brazilians. It is associated with adverse sociodemographic characteristics; lack of social interaction; and poor self-rated health, ADL, vision, and depression; although not with other health conditions. Self-care may be neglected, resulting in hospitalization.
Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions with different scanning strategies: An in vitro study

Luca Ortensi,Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa,Stefania Ciletta,Eugenio Pedullà

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105433

2024-10-26

Abstract:Objectives: To evaluate the effects of three different scanning strategies on the trueness and precision of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral scanners (IOSs). Methods: The reference maxillary dental arch model was fabricated using Telio CAD, and the relative reference digital reference cast was obtained using a computer numerical control machine and an optical scanner (E4, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Test scans were performed with four different IOSs (TRIOS3, MEDIT i700, CS 3600, and iTero Element 5D) by an experienced operator and three different scanning strategies (S1: manufacturer-recommended, S2: optimal per previous literature, and S3: experimental). The scan duration was recorded for each scan. All scans were converted to standard tessellation language format and imported into Geomagic Control X. The accuracy was measured by absolute deviation/distance between aligned surfaces. for comparison with the reference cast using Initial Alignment and Best Fit Alignment functions. Data of trueness and precision of each IOS and scan duration were statistically compared using analysis of variance for repeated measures and Bonferroni post-hoc test (p<.05). Results: Scans obtained with MEDIT i700 and CS 3600 showed higher trueness with S3 (p<.05). Scans obtained with TRIOS 3, MEDIT i700, and CS 3600 were more precise with S3, whereas those with iTero Element 5D were more precise with S2 (p<.05). Statistically significant differences were found in scan duration between different scan strategies for all IOSs. Results: No significant differences in trueness were found among strategies (S1: 9.98 µm, S2: 11.93 µm, S3: 8.84 µm; p=0.388) in Trios 3 and iTero Element 5D (S1: 12.24µm, S2: 11.53µm, S3: 10.71µm; p= p=0.279). Scanning strategy S3 with MEDIT i700 achieved greater trueness (7.33 µm) than S2 (16.33 µm, p<.05), while no significant difference was noted between S1 (10.44 µm) and S3 (p=0.291). S3 showed the highest trueness (16.28 µm) compared to S2 (24.05 µm) and S1 (24.78 µm, p<.001) for CS 3600, with no difference between S1 and S2 (p=0.457). Trios 3 had higher precision with S2 (22.46 µm) than S3 (31.69 µm, p<.05), and no significant differences between S1 (25.67 µm) and S2/S3 (p>.05). MEDIT i700 with S3 (29.52 µm) was more precise than both S1 (39.52 µm) and S2 (46.24 µm) (p<.001) with no difference between the last two (p=0.302). S2 yielded the highest precision (44.93 µm) compared to S3 (61.81 µm) and S1 (76.53 µm) (p<.001) for CS 3600, with S3 more precise than S1 (p<.001). Similarly, iTero Element 5D showed S2 as the most precise (30.19 µm) compared to S3 (42.80 µm) and S1 (44.45 µm) (p<.05), with no difference between S1 and S3 (p=0.472). Scan durations were shorter for S3 and S1 compared to S2 in Trios 3 (p<.001), and S3 was faster than S1 and S2 for MEDIT i700 (p<.001). CS 3600 scans with S1 were quicker than S2 and S3 (p<.001). For iTero Element 5D, no significant differences were found between S1 and S3 (p=0.511), but S2 was slower than both (p<.001). Conclusions: Scanning strategies significantly affect the accuracy and scan duration of optical impressions. Overall, scans obtained with S3 showed the best combination of trueness, precision, and scan duration with MEDIT i700. Specifically, S3 provided the best trueness with both the MEDIT i700 and the CS 3600 while the S2 strategy demonstrated the highest precision for most scanners. Overall, the S1 and S3 strategies resulted faster than S2 among the devices evaluated. Clinical significance: The study's results suggest that the experimental scan strategy may optimize the use of intraoral scanners in clinical practice, potentially leading to more accurate and time-efficient dental impressions.
Accuracy of intraoral versus desktop scanners used in digitizing polyvinyl siloxane impression for fabricating a CAD‐CAM customized post and core

Xinyue Cui,Yushu Liu,Rui Zhang,Xinzhi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13974

2024-10-31

Journal of Prosthodontics

Abstract:Purpose This in vitro study aimed to compare the 3‐dimensional (3D) accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners when digitizing the post and core polyvinyl siloxane impressions. Material and Methods Ten extracted human teeth were prepared to build a post space in the root canal. Each tooth was scanned using a micro‐computed tomography device (MCT), and the slice data were reconstructed as controls. A conventional quadrant polyvinyl siloxane impression was made and scanned thrice using an intraoral scanner (IOS) and a desktop blue‐light scanner (IMS), with one of the scans randomly selected as the definitive cast. Precision was assessed by comparing the deviations among repeated scans. Trueness was evaluated by analyzing the deviations between the MCT and each definitive cast (MCT‐IOS and MCT‐IMS). The clinically acceptable root mean square (RMS) value was set to 50 μm. Results The mean RMS values of the repeated scans of IOS and IMS were 18.3 ± 3.9 μm and 13.9 ± 6.2 μm (P < 0.05), and the difference between them was 4.4 ± 5.9 μm. The mean RMS values of MCT‐IOS and MCT‐IMS were 28.3 ±3.0 μm and 31.3 ± 4.2 μm (P < 0.05), with a difference of 3.0 ± 2.9 μm. The RMS values were significantly lower than 50 μm (P < 0.05). Conclusions The IOS showed slightly better trueness than the IMS but slightly lower precision. The precision and trueness of the two scanners for digitizing post and core impressions were acceptable for clinical application.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

Motasem Bellah Bader Eddin,Özay Önöral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.001

2024-07-26

Abstract:Statement of problem: Studies are sparse on how splinting scan bodies or incorporating 3-dimensionally (3D) printed scan aids influence the trueness of complete arch digital scans. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of multisite implant recordings obtained using 6 different methods on an edentulous mandible. Material and methods: A definitive cast of an edentulous mandible with 4 multi-unit analogs placed at different angles and interanalog distances was extraorally scanned, and the resulting data were saved as a reference file. To obtain experimental files, 6 distinct methods were used: conventional impression with splinted open-tray impression copings (IC), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting scan bodies or using any scan aids (SB), IOS with pattern resin-splinted scan bodies (PR), IOS with composite resin-splinted scan bodies (CR), IOS with 3D printed custom scan bodies (CSB), and IOS with 3D printed auxiliary apparatus (AA). The experimental files were aligned to the reference file in a metrology software program. The 3D comparison algorithm was run to quantify the root mean square estimate error (RMS). Scan bodies in the files were converted to hollow virtual cylinders, and the Cartesian coordinates of the lines passing through the centers of these cylinders were recorded to analyze angular (AD) and linear distortion (LD). LD was further analyzed along the x (∆X), y (∆Y), and z axes (∆Z). One-way ANOVAs with the Tukey HSD test were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). Results: AD at all sites, LD at all sites, and the RMS error showed significant differences (P<.05). The IC group showed the lowest AD values across all sites, followed by the AA, CSB, PR, CR, and SB groups. The SB group had the greatest LD values at all sites, while the IC group indicated the lowest LD values at all sites except the left anterior site. In terms of 3D distortions, the SB group had the largest RMS value, whereas the IC group showed the lowest RMS value. ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values also showed significant differences at all sites (P<.001) except for the ∆Z values at the right anterior site (P=.194). The highest mean ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values were recorded in the SB group except for the ∆Z measurement of the left posterior site. Conclusions: The IC group outperformed the other groups. The AA group exhibited distortion comparable with that of the IC group. Splinting scan bodies or using scan aids enhanced the trueness.
Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Digital Models Formulated From Direct Intra-oral Scanning of Dental Arches in Comparison With Extra-oral Scanning of Poured Dental Models in Terms of Dimensional Accuracy and Reliability

Samer T. Jaber,Mohammad Y. Hajeer,Khaled Walid Alkhouli,Rabab Mohamad Al-Shamak,Khaldoun M.A. Darwich,Ossama Aljabban,Mohammad Khursheed Alam,Jehad M. Kara-Boulad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.54869

2024-02-25

Cureus

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The study's objective was to assess the dimensional accuracy and reliability of dental digital models prepared by direct intraoral scanning and indirect scanning of the plaster models compared to the plaster models as the gold standard.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 20 patients. Nine had a class I malocclusion, seven had a class II malocclusion, and four had a class III malocclusion. Intraoral scanning was done for the upper and lower arches of all the patients enrolled in this study using an intraoral scanner (i700; Medit, Seoul, Korea). The next step was preparing the plaster model for the control group. Addition-silicone impressions were taken for each patient's arches. The impressions were poured according to American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) standards. Finally, the digital models of the indirect scanning group were prepared using a 3D desktop scanner (T710; Medit). In total, 26 measurements were made on the plaster and digital models. Paired t-tests were used to test for significant differences between the studied groups. The reliability of the studied techniques was tested using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Because of the multiple comparisons, the ɑ level was adjusted and set at 0.002.RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the intraoral scanning group (20 patients) and the plaster models group (20 patients; P>0.002). The ICCs ranged from 0.814 to 0.993, indicating excellent agreement between the direct digital and traditional plaster models. There were no significant differences between the digital and original plaster models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged from 0.834 to 0.995, indicating excellent agreement between the indirect digital and original plaster models. No significant differences were detected between the direct and indirect digital models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged between 0.813 and 0.999, indicating excellent agreement between direct and indirect digital models.CONCLUSION: Both direct and indirect scanning techniques are accurate and reliable for digital model preparation and can be considered an alternative to traditional plaster models used in clinical orthodontics diagnostic applications. The intraoral scanning technique can be considered a valid alternative for indirect scanning of the plaster models to prepare digital working models during the digital design and fabrication of orthodontic appliances such as clear aligners.
Accuracy of Three Digital Scanning Methods for Complete-Arch Tooth Preparation: an in Vitro Comparison

Hanqi Gao,Xiaoqiang Liu,Mingyue Liu,Xu Yang,Jianguo Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.029

2022-01-01

Abstract:Statement of problem. The accuracy of digital scanning for complete dental arch and implant-supported complete-arch restorations has been reported. However, research addressing the accuracy of digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation is lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning, impression scanning, and cast scanning for complete-arch preparation.Material and methods. Maxillary and mandibular jaw typodonts with 28 teeth prepared for complete crowns were used as reference casts and digitized as reference data sets with a desktop scanner. Three digital scanning methods were applied. First, the reference casts were each scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner to generate the intraoral scanning group data sets. Second, the reference casts were each captured 10 times by using polyvinyl siloxane impression material, and the impressions were scanned with a desktop scanner to generate the impression scanning group data sets. Third, the impressions obtained in the impression scanning group were used to make gypsum casts which were then digitized with a desktop scanner to generate the cast scanning group data sets. Accuracy was determined by trueness and precision. Three-dimensional deviations of the prepared arches and anterior and posterior segments were measured from root mean square values and depicted on color-difference maps. Differences among test groups were analyzed by using a 1-way ANOVA and the post hoc Bonferroni test for normally distributed data or the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction for non-normally distributed data (a=.05).Results. The trueness of the maxillary arch was significantly higher in the impression scanning group than in the cast scanning and intraoral scanning groups (P<.05), but no significant differences were found among the 3 groups of the mandibular arch (P>.05). The precision of both arches was significantly higher in the impression scanning and intraoral scanning groups than in the cast scanning group (P<.05). Color maps showed horizontal symmetrical displacement in the intraoral scanning group relative to the reference data sets and within-group unilateral distal-end distortion. Irregular arch deformations were noted in the impression scanning group, and buccal and occlusal expansion occurred in the anterior-posterior direction in the cast scanning group. Pooled data for anterior teeth indicated that the trueness was lowest in the intraoral scanning group; however, that for the maxillary anterior teeth did not differ, while that for the mandibular anterior teeth differed significantly among groups (P<.05). For the posterior teeth, deviation was the lowest in the impression scanning group, and significant differences were noted in both arches among the 3 groups (P<.05).Conclusions. Of the methods tested, impression scanning was the most accurate for the creation of a digital cast of a complete prepared arch. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1001-8)
Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of full-arch scans by Cerec Primescan AC: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

Christine Keul,Jan-Frederik Güth

2022-03-24

Abstract:Aim: To determine the effect of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital full-arch scans. Materials and methods: A reference bar was used for the in vivo and in vitro parts of the present study. For the in vitro part (PAT-vitro), the bar was fixed to connect the maxillary second molars on the patient's resin model. The same reference bar was fixed in a similar position intraorally for the in vivo testing (PAT-vivo). Model and patient were digitized using an intraoral scanner (Cerec Primescan AC, N = 40, n [PAT-vitro] = 20, n [PAT-vivo] = 20). Datasets were exported and metrically analyzed (Geomagic Control 2015) to determine the 3D linear and angular distortions in all three coordinate axes of the datasets with reference to the bar. Normality of the data distribution was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Homogeneity of the variances was tested using the Levené test. Statistically significant differences for all measured parameters in view of trueness were determined using the two-sample t test, and in view of precision using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results: The PAT-vivo group showed significantly higher trueness for most of the measured linear and angular distortion parameters than the PAT-vitro group. Regarding precision, the PAT-vitro group showed significantly better values for most of the measured linear and angular distortion parameters than the PAT-vivo group. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, Cerec Primescan AC leads to comparable accuracy parameters when applied in vivo and in vitro. The reproducibility (precision) was higher when scans were performed in vitro. Due to the high trueness, the system seems to be a valid tool to obtain digital full-arch datasets in vivo with comparable accuracy to in vitro tests. coronalaxial.
Influence of apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners with various focal lengths and scanning technologies

Marta Revilla-León,Elizabeth Fry,Jonathan M Zeitler,Junying Li,Abdul B Barmak,John C Kois,Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.05.034

2024-08-16

Abstract:Statement of problem: Limited studies have reported the influence of finish line location on the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). Focal length is a hardware characteristic of IOSs. Whether there is a relationship between scanning accuracy of tooth preparations with the finish located at different apical positions and focal length and IOS technology or system remains uncertain. Purpose: The purpose of the present in vitro study was to assess the influence of the apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the accuracy of 4 IOSs with various focal lengths and scanning technologies. Material and methods: A maxillary typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710). Afterwards, a removable die was created on the prepared first molar of the virtual cast and duplicated to create 4 dies with different apical finish line locations: 2- or 1-mm supragingival, 0-mm or equigingival, and -0.5-mm or intracrevicular. The cast and die designs were additively fabricated (Asiga Pro 4K with Keystone Model Ultra). Each die was independently scanned by using the same laboratory scanner (reference scans). Four groups were created: TRIOS 5, i700, iTero, and Primescan. Four subgroups were developed depending on the apical position of the finish line (n=15). In each subgroup, the cast was assembled by positioning the corresponding die into the cast. The cast was then scanned by using the corresponding IOS. The reference scans were used as a control to compute the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the preparation and margin of the preparation areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum test were used to analyze precision (α=.05). Results: Trueness discrepancies in the preparation area were found among the groups (P=.010) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P<.001). The -0.5 mm location obtained significantly worse trueness in the preparation area. The TRIOS 5 and i700 obtained the best trueness in the preparation area. Trueness discrepancies in the margin area were found among the groups (P=.002) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P=.004). The -0.5 mm location obtained the worst trueness in the margin area. The i700 and Primescan obtained the best trueness in the margin area. Precision discrepancies were found in the preparation area (P<.001). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best precision in the preparation area (P=.001). Precision discrepancies in the margin area were obtained (P<.001). The 1-mm subgroup obtained the best precision (P=.001). Conclusions: The apical position of the finish line of the tooth preparation tested affected the trueness and precision of the IOSs tested.
Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

Mingyue Lyu,Ping Di,Ye Lin,Xi Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016

IF: 4.148

2021-01-01

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem. Intraoral scanning has benefits over conventional impression making, but whether scanning is sufficiently accurate for multiple implants is unclear.Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of digital scans acquired by using intraoral scanners from a small range to a complete arch with the conventional impression technique and to determine the influence of 2 different evaluation methods (best -fit algorithm versus absolute linear deviation) on the outcomes of accuracy assessment.Material and methods. A mandibular model with 8 implants (A-H) around an edentulous arch was used as the master model. Open-format standard tessellation language (STL) data sets (1 reference file from a highly accurate dental laboratory scanner, 10 files from an intraoral scanner, and 10 files from digitized conventional impressions at room temperature) were imported to a metrology software program, and 5 groups of scanning ranges (AB, FGH, CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH) were identified simulating different clinical situations. Two evaluation methods -root mean square values calculated from the best -fit algorithm and average value of linear discrepancies from absolute linear deviation -were used to describe the trueness values. The impacts of different scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods were tested by using a 3-way ANOVA. The effect of the scanning range on accuracy was further identified with 1-way ANOVA. The paired-sample t test was used to determine the differences of trueness values between the 2 methods in different groups.Results. The trueness values of the implant impressions were significantly affected by different scanning or impression methods (P<.001), evaluation methods (P<.001), and scanning ranges (P<.001) as independent variables. With use of the best -fit algorithm, deviations from the digital scans were significantly greater than those from the conventional impressions in cross -arch situations (groups CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH). With use of the absolute linear deviation method, statistically significant lower accuracy was found when larger areas were encountered (groups BCDEFG and ABCDEFGH). Use of the absolute linear deviation method resulted in a higher mean score of inaccuracy than that from the best -fit algorithm method in most situations.Conclusions. Scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods affected the dimensional accuracy (trueness) of scans or impressions with multiple implants. Digital scans had worse trueness values compared with those made with the conventional splinting open-tray technique when cross-arch implant impressions were acquired. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1017-23)
A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners

Adam B. Nulty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj9070075

2021-06-23

Dentistry Journal

Abstract:(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the full arch scan accuracy (precision and trueness) of nine digital intra-oral scanners and four lab scanners. Previous studies have compared the accuracy of some intra-oral scanners, but as this is a field of quickly developing technologies, a more up-to-date study was needed to assess the capabilities of currently available models. (2) Methods: The present in vitro study compared nine different intra-oral scanners (Omnicam 4.6; Omnicam 5.1; Primescan; CS 3600; Trios 3; Trios 4; Runyes; i500; and DL206) as well as four lab light scanners (Einscan SE; 300e; E2; and Ineos X5) to investigate the accuracy of each scanner by examining the overall trueness and precision. Ten aligned and cut scans from each of the intra-oral and lab scanners in the in vitro study were brought into CloudCompare. A comparison was made with the master STL using the CloudCompare 3D analysis best-fit algorithm. The results were recorded along with individual standard deviation and a colorimetric map of the deviation across the surface of the STL mesh; a comparison was made to the master STL, quantified at specific points. (3) Results: In the present study, the Primescan had the best overall trueness (17.3 ± 4.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the Trios 4 (20.8 ± 6.2), i500 (25.2 ± 7.3), CS3600 (26.9 ± 15.9), Trios 3 (27.7 ± 6.8), Runyes (47.2 ± 5.4), Omnicam 5.1 (55.1 ± 9.5), Omnicam 4.6 (57.5 ± 3.2), and Launca DL206 (58.5 ± 22.0). Regarding the lab light scanners, the Ineos X5 had the best overall trueness with (0.0 ± 1.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the 3Shape E2 (3.6 ± 2.2), Up3D 300E (12.8 ± 2.7), and Einscan SE (14.9 ± 9.5). (4) Conclusions: This study confirms that all current generations of intra-oral digital scanners can capture a reliable, reproducible full arch scan in dentate patients. Out of the intra-oral scanners tested, no scanner produced results significantly similar in trueness to the Ineos X5. However, the Primescan was the only one to be statistically of a similar level of trueness to the 3Shape E2 lab scanner. All scanners in the study had mean trueness of under 60-micron deviation. While this study can compare the scanning accuracy of this sample in a dentate arch, the scanning of a fully edentulous arch is more challenging. The accuracy of these scanners in edentulous cases should be examined in further studies.
Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization

Jan-Frederik Güth,Cornelius Runkel,Florian Beuer,Michael Stimmelmayr,Daniel Edelhoff,Christine Keul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4

2016-07-12

Clinical Oral Investigations

Abstract:ObjectivesDirect and indirect digitalization offer two options for computer-aided design (CAD)/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-generated restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners and compare them to the process of indirect digitalization.Material and methodA titanium testing model was directly digitized 12 times with each intraoral scanner: (1) CS 3500 (CS), (2) Zfx Intrascan (ZFX), (3) CEREC AC Bluecam (BLU), (4) CEREC AC Omnicam (OC) and (5) True Definition (TD). As control, 12 polyether impressions were taken and the referring plaster casts were digitized indirectly with the D-810 laboratory scanner (CON). The accuracy (trueness/precision) of the datasets was evaluated by an analysing software (Geomagic Qualify 12.1) using a “best fit alignment” of the datasets with a highly accurate reference dataset of the testing model, received from industrial computed tomography.ResultsDirect digitalization using the TD showed the significant highest overall “trueness”, followed by CS. Both performed better than CON. BLU, ZFX and OC showed higher differences from the reference dataset than CON. Regarding the overall “precision”, the CS 3500 intraoral scanner and the True Definition showed the best performance. CON, BLU and OC resulted in significantly higher precision than ZFX did.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the ascertained datasets was dependent on the scanning system. The direct digitalization was not superior to indirect digitalization for all tested systems.Clinical relevanceRegarding the accuracy, all tested intraoral scanning technologies seem to be able to reproduce a single quadrant within clinical acceptable accuracy. However, differences were detected between the tested systems.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Effect of stabilization of patients on the accuracy and scanning time of maxillary dentate quadrants: A clinical study

Elia Daccache,Carole Abi Ghosn Yared,Lara Nasr,Ghida Laawand,Hani Tohme

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.09.022

2023-10-27

Abstract:Statement of problem: As intraoral scanning has gained widespread acceptance as an alternative to conventional impression-making, numerous studies have evaluated the influence of operator-related factors and patient-related factors on scanning accuracy. While several authors have noted patient movements as a clinical limitation of scanning technologies, research providing empirical data or testing this hypothesis is lacking. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the effect of using the Zero Motion Scanning Band, a silicone occlusal mouth prop, and an OptraGate lip retractor for stabilizing the head and jaw on the accuracy (trueness and precision) and scanning time of digital quadrant scans. Material and methods: A conventional impression was made of the maxillary right quadrant with polyvinyl siloxane material and then digitized using a calibrated extraoral scanner to create the reference file. Two different groups were created: no scanning aids (NSA) and with scanning aids (WSA). For the NSA group, scans were made without considering the participant's movements. For the WSA group, scans included the Zero Motion Scanning Band, a silicone occlusal mouth prop, and an OptraGate lip retractor. Sixty-four scans were captured with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) for each group, and the scanning time was recorded. Using an inspection and metrology software program, scans of each group were superimposed on the reference file to determine 3-dimensional (3D) deviations. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test evaluated the normality of the distribution of variables, and the Mann-Whitney U test was selected for data analysis of non-normally distributed variables, including 3D deviations and scanning time (α=.05). Results: Significant differences for trueness and scanning time mean values were observed under different scanning conditions: with and without head and jaw positioning (P<.05). The modified scan protocol exhibited higher trueness, with smaller mean root mean square values of 38.4 ±2.7 µm compared with 40.8 ±3.1 µm in the nonmodified group. However, precision did not display a statistically significant difference with varying scanning conditions (P>.05). Conclusions: The use of the Zero Motion Scanning Band, a lip retractor, and a silicone occlusal mouth prop on the contralateral side of the scanned quadrant significantly improved the trueness and scanning time of the quadrant digital scan. Further evaluation of head and jaw stabilizing tools is recommended in more complex clinical scenarios, such as complete arch digital scans and scanning implant-supported restorations.
[Precision of digital impressions with TRIOS under simulated intraoral impression taking conditions].

Xin Yang,Yi-fei Sun,Lei Tian,Wen-jie Si,Hai-lan Feng,Yi-hong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2015.01.016

2015-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the precision of digital impressions taken under simulated clinical impression taking conditions with TRIOS and to compare with the precision of extraoral digitalizations. METHODS:Six #14-#17 epoxy resin dentitions with extracted #16 tooth preparations embedded were made. For each artificial dentition, (1)a silicone rubber impression was taken with individual tray, poured with type IV plaster,and digitalized with 3Shape D700 model scanner for 10 times; (2) fastened to a dental simulator, 10 digital impressions for each were taken with 3Shape TRIOS intraoral scanner. To assess the precision, best-fit algorithm and 3D comparison were conducted between repeated scan models pairwise by Geomagic Qualify 12.0, exported as averaged errors (AE) and color-coded diagrams. Non-parametric analysis was performed to compare the precisions of digital impressions and model images. The color-coded diagrams were used to show the deviations distributions. RESULTS:The mean of AE for digital impressions was 7.058 281 μm, which was greater than that of 4.092 363 μm for the model images (P<0.05). However, the means and medians of AE for digital impressions were no more than 10 μm, which meant that the consistency between the digital impressions was good. The deviations distribution was uniform in the model images,while nonuniform in the digital impressions with greater deviations lay mainly around the shoulders and interproximal surfaces. CONCLUSION:Digital impressions with TRIOS are of good precision and up to the clinical standard. Shoulders and interproximal surfaces scanning are more difficult.
[ON THE BEHAVIOR OF IRON IN LIVER STEATOSIS].

H. Dittrich,I. Hoelbel,E. Seifert

1964-11-01

Abstract:
Comparisons of precision and trueness of digital dental casts produced by desktop scanners and intraoral scanners

Chun-Chao Chuang,Feng-Chou Cheng,Mu-Hsiung Chen,Wei-Chun Lin,Chun-Pin Chiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2024.09.016

IF: 3.719

2024-09-30

Journal of Dental Sciences

Abstract:Background/purpose Different types of scanners are gradually used to produce digital dental casts in the current dental practice. This study tested the accuracy of the three desktop scanners and two intraoral scanners and evaluated whether the desktop scanners had higher precision than the intraoral scanners. Materials and methods This study used the three desktop and two intraoral scanners to scan a standard dental cast 5 times. The 5 digital casts produced by the same scanner were compared each other to study the precision errors of each scanner. Moreover, 5 sets of the 5 digital casts produced by the 5 different scanners were compared each other to investigate the trueness errors among these 5 different scanners. Results This study showed a significant difference in the precision error of produced digital casts made by the 5 different scanners ( P < 0.0001). The two intraoral scanners had significantly higher precision errors of produced digital casts than the three desktop scanners. However, there were no significant differences in the precision errors among the three desktop scanners and between the two intraoral scanners. The results of the whole cast or particular tooth surface trueness analyses demonstrated that the trueness errors were concentrated at the molar regions of produced digital casts when comparisons were performed between the intraoral and desktop scanners. Conclusion We conclude that the desktop scanners can achieve a better precision than the intraoral scanners. When the intraoral scanner is used, the dentist should notice the possible model errors at the molar regions.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine

Severe anaphylactic reaction after intracameral antibiotic administration during cataract surgery.

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

Comparison of Intraoral Scanning Modes in Three Distinct Full- Arch Digital Implant Impression Scenarios: An In Vitro Study

Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: an in Vitro Study.

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Different Scan Patterns for Full-Arch Digital Implant Impressions

Carpal tunnel syndrome. A new feature in the natural history of TOS?

Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Inactivity among Older Adults in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions with different scanning strategies: An in vitro study

Accuracy of intraoral versus desktop scanners used in digitizing polyvinyl siloxane impression for fabricating a CAD‐CAM customized post and core

Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Digital Models Formulated From Direct Intra-oral Scanning of Dental Arches in Comparison With Extra-oral Scanning of Poured Dental Models in Terms of Dimensional Accuracy and Reliability

Accuracy of Three Digital Scanning Methods for Complete-Arch Tooth Preparation: an in Vitro Comparison

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of full-arch scans by Cerec Primescan AC: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

Influence of apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners with various focal lengths and scanning technologies

Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners

Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization

Effect of stabilization of patients on the accuracy and scanning time of maxillary dentate quadrants: A clinical study

[Precision of digital impressions with TRIOS under simulated intraoral impression taking conditions].

[ON THE BEHAVIOR OF IRON IN LIVER STEATOSIS].

Comparisons of precision and trueness of digital dental casts produced by desktop scanners and intraoral scanners