Intraoral scanners (IOS) are devices for capturing direct optical impressions in dentistry. The purpose of this narrative review on the use of IOS was to: (1) identify the advantages/disadvantages of using optical impressions compared to conventional impressions; (2) investigate if optical impressions are as accurate as conventional impressions; (3) evaluate the differences between the IOS currently available commercially; (4) determine the current clinical applications/limitations in the use of IOS. Electronic database searches were performed using specific keywords and MeSH terms. The searches were confined to full-text articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2007 and June 2017. One hundred thirty-two studies were included in the present review; among them, 20 were previous literature reviews, 78 were in vivo clinical studies (6 randomized controlled/crossover trials, 31 controlled/comparative studies; 24 cohort studies/case series; 17 case reports) and 34 were in vitro comparative studies. Optical impressions reduce patient discomfort; IOS are time-efficient and simplify clinical procedures for the dentist, eliminating plaster models and allowing better communication with the dental technician and with patients; however, with IOS, it can be difficult to detect deep margin lines in prepared teeth and/or in case of bleeding, there is a learning curve, and there are purchasing and managing costs. The current IOS are sufficiently accurate for capturing impressions for fabricating a whole series of prosthetic restorations (inlays/onlays, copings and frameworks, single crowns and fixed partial dentures) on both natural teeth and implants; in addition, they can be used for smile design, and to fabricate posts and cores, removable partial prostheses and obturators. The literature to date does not support the use of IOS in long-span restorations with natural teeth or implants. Finally, IOS can be integrated in implant dentistry for guided surgery and in orthodontics for fabricating aligners and custom-made devices.

/pdf/intraoral-scanners-in-dentistry-a-review-of-the-current-26q4ueb6fl.pdf

Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

To overcome difficulties associated with conventional techniques, impressions with IOS (intraoral scanner) and CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and manufacturing) technologies were developed for dental practice. The last decade has seen an increasing number of optical IOS devices, and these are based on different technologies; the choice of which may impact on clinical use. To allow informed choice before purchasing or renewing an IOS, this article summarizes first the technologies currently used (light projection, distance object determination, and reconstruction). In the second section, the clinical considerations of each strategy such as handling, learning curve, powdering, scanning paths, tracking, and mesh quality are discussed. The last section is dedicated to the accuracy of files and of the intermaxillary relationship registered with IOS as the rendering of files in the graphical user interface is often misleading. This overview leads to the conclusion that the current IOS is adapted for a common practice, although differences exist between the technologies employed. An important aspect highlighted in this review is the reduction in the volume of hardware which has led to an increase in the importance of software-based technologies.

/pdf/intraoral-scanner-technologies-a-review-to-make-a-successful-44z227px3u.pdf

Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression.

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= 10 C 2 =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 P 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 P 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.

Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.

Statement of problem Digital scans have increasingly become an alternative to conventional impressions. Although previous studies have analyzed the accuracy of the available intraoral scanners (IOSs), the effect of the light scanning conditions on the accuracy of those IOS systems remains unclear. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the impact of lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different IOSs. Material and methods A typodont was digitized by using an extraoral scanner (L2i; Imetric) to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. Three IOSs were evaluated—iTero Element, CEREC Omnicam, and TRIOS 3—with 4 lighting conditions—chair light 10 000 lux, room light 1003 lux, natural light 500 lux, and no light 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group were recorded. The STL file was used as a reference to measure the discrepancy between the digitized typodont and digital scans by using the MeshLab software program. The Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparison were used to analyze the data. Results Significant differences for trueness and precision mean values were observed across different IOSs tested with the same lighting conditions and across different lighting conditions for a given IOS. In all groups, precision mean values were higher than their trueness values, indicating low relative precision. Conclusions Ambient lighting conditions influenced the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOSs tested. The recommended lighting conditions depend on the IOS selected. For iTero Element, chair and room light conditions resulted in better accuracy mean values. For CEREC Omnicam, zero light resulted in better accuracy, and for TRIOS 3, room light resulted in better accuracy.

Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.

PURPOSE
To quantify the impact of ambient lighting conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner (IOS) when maxillary complete-arch and maxillary right quadrant digital scans were performed in a patient.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
One complete dentate patient was selected. A complete maxillary arch vinyl polysiloxane impression was obtained and poured using Type IV dental stone. The working cast was digitized using a laboratory scanner (E4 Dental Scanner; 3Shape) and the reference standard tessellation language (STL file) was obtained. Two groups were created based on the extension of the maxillary digital scans performed namely complete-arch (CA group) and right quadrant (RQ) groups. The CA and RQ digital scans of the patient were performed using an IOS (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) with 4 lighting conditions chair light (CL), 10 000 lux, room light (RL), 1003 lux, natural light (NL), 500 lux, and no light (ZL), 0 lux. Ten digital scans per group at each ambient light settings (CL, RL, NL, and ZL) were consecutively obtained (n = 10). The STL$_{R}$ file was used to analyze the discrepancy between the digitized working cast and digital scans using MeshLab software. Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and pair-wise comparison were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
Significant difference in the trueness and precision values were found across different lighting conditions where RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error compared with the other lighting conditions tested followed by CL, NL, and ZL. On the CA group, RL condition also obtained the best accuracy values, CL and NL conditions performed closely and under ZL condition the mean error presented the highest values. On the RQ group, CL condition presented the lowest absolute error when compared with the other lighting conditions evaluated. A pair-wise multicomparison showed no significant difference between NL and ZL conditions. In all groups, the standard deviation was higher than the mean errors from the control mesh, indicating that the relative precision was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Light conditions significantly influenced on the scanning accuracy of the IOS evaluated. RL condition obtained the lowest absolute error value of the digital scans performed. The extension of the digital scan was a scanning accuracy influencing factor. The higher the extension of the digital scan performed, the lower the accuracy values obtained. Furthermore, ambient light scanning conditions influenced differently depending on the extension of the digital scans made.

/pdf/clinical-study-of-the-influence-of-ambient-light-scanning-17nbefs38i.pdf

Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner

Statement of problem Conventional impression-making methods are being replaced by intraoral digital scanning. How long dental professionals take to master the new technologies is unknown. Purpose The purpose of this human subject study was to compare the experience curves of 2 intraoral scanners among dental hygienists and determine whether repeated scanning experience could change the scan time (ST). Material and methods A total of 29 dental hygienists with more than 3 years of working experience were recruited (group 1: 3-5 years; group 2: >6 years of clinical experience) to learn the iTero and Trios systems. All learners scanned the oral cavities of 4 human participants (participants A, B, C, and D) 10 times (T1-T10) throughout the learning sessions and the experimental dentoform model twice at the beginning and end of the 10 sessions. ST was measured, and changes in ST were compared between the 2 devices. Results The average ST for 10 sessions was greater with iTero than with Trios, but the decrease in the measured ST was greater for iTero than for Trios. Baseline and postexperience STs with iTero showed statistically significant differences, with a decrease in time related to the clinical experience levels of the dental hygienists (group 1: T2 and T4, P P Conclusions Although the learning rate of iTero was rapid, the average ST for iTero was longer than Trios, and clinical experience levels influenced the operator's ability to manipulate the device. In contrast, the learning rate of Trios was slow, and measured ST was shorter than iTero, and was not influenced by clinical experience.

Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision of threedimensional (3D) images acquired using iTero® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) and Trios® (3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark) digital intraoral scanners, and to evaluate the effects of the severity of tooth irregularities and scanning sequence on precision. Methods: Dental arch models were fabricated with differing degrees of tooth irregularity and divided into 2 groups based on scanning sequence. To assess their precision, images were superimposed and an optimized superimposition algorithm was employed to measure any 3D deviation. The t-test, paired t-test, and one-way ANOVA were performed (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis. Results: The iTero® and Trios® systems showed no statistically significant difference in precision among models with differing degrees of tooth irregularity. However, there were statistically significant differences in the precision of the 2 scanners when the starting points of scanning were different. The iTero® scanner (mean deviation, 29.84 ± 12.08 mm) proved to be less precise than the Trios® scanner (22.17 ± 4.47 mm). Conclusions: The precision of 3D images differed according to the degree of tooth irregularity, scanning sequence, and scanner type. However, from a clinical standpoint, both scanners were highly accurate regardless of the degree of tooth irregularity. [Korean J Orthod 2016;46(1):3-12]

/pdf/a-comparison-of-the-precision-of-three-dimensional-images-17txmu1y2v.pdf

A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the precision of threedimensional (3D) images acquired using iTero ® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) and Trios ® (3Shape Dental Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark) digital intraoral scanners, and to evaluate the effects of the severity of tooth irregularities and scanning sequence on precision. Methods: Dental arch models were fabricated with differing degrees of tooth irregularity and divided into 2 groups based on scanning sequence. To assess their precision, images were superimposed and an optimized superimposition algorithm was employed to measure any 3D deviation. The t -test, paired t-test, and one-way ANOVA were performed (p ® and Trios ® systems showed no statistically significant difference in precision among models with differing degrees of tooth irregularity. However, there were statistically significant differences in the precision of the 2 scanners when the starting points of scanning were different. The iTero ® scanner (mean deviation, 29.84 ± 12.08 mm) proved to be less precise than the Trios ® scanner (22.17 ± 4.47 mm). Conclusions: The precision of 3D images differed according to the degree of tooth irregularity, scanning sequence, and scanner type. However, from a clinical standpoint, both scanners were highly accurate regardless of the degree of tooth irregularity.

Miae Kim

Papers

Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.

A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction

A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners