Abstract
Background
Digital workflow has invaded the different dental specialities. It includes some steps, the first of them is the scan process and dental modelling. Many methods are available for digital model fabrication. Therefore, the aim of this in vivo study to assess and compare the accuracy of 3-dimensional (3D) digital dental models obtained from scanning of conventional impressions versus models from digital impressions.
Materials and Methods
Three-dimensional digital model files were obtained in vivo from three different methods including scanning of impressions by both Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) machine (Veraview x800, JMorita) and desktop scanner (Smart optics, Vinyl Open Air). The same volunteers have received digital impressions by an intraoral scanner (CS3600). Six linear measurements were measured in each Stereolithography (STL) model and compared with direct calliper measurements. Additionally, STL files from the three systems were paired and superimposed using a best-fit algorithm in a 3D modelling software. Mean deviations between the STL shells were calculated by the software and color maps were obtained for visual analysis. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine the intra-examiner reliability. Paired t-test, ANOVA with repeated measures and Post Hoc test (Bonferroni adjusted) were used in the statistical analysis. Significance of the obtained results was judged at the 5% level.
Results
The linear measurements and 3D deviation analysis revealed significant differences in some measurements but were considered clinically accepted. Digital models obtained from laser scanning of the impressions revealed the least mean differences from the gold standard ranging from (-0.24 to 0.01 mm), while CBCT scanning of the impressions mean differences ranged from (0.16 to -0.04 mm). IOS revealed the highest mean differences ranging from (0.11 to 0.33 mm).
Conclusion
Scanning the impression with a desktop scanner provided the highest accuracy in full arch scans followed by scanning with CBCT but with decreased surface texture of the 3D mesh. While intraoral scanners showed the least accuracy for full arch scans up till now and need further improvement in their technology. All techniques can be applied in clinical practice providing the use of high quality machines.