Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of two intraoral scanners (IOS) for partial and complete coverage tooth preparations in the presence and absence of adjacent teeth using three-dimensional (3D) comparisons.

Materials and Methods: Eight different complete coverage (CC) and partial coverage (PC) tooth preparations were scanned by two IOS, the Trios (TRI) IOS from 3Shape and the True Definition (TRU) IOS from 3M. All teeth preparations were scanned with the IOS in the presence and absence of adjacent teeth. Four groups were established for each scanner; Group 1: PC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 2: CC preparations with adjacent teeth. Group 3: PC preparations without adjacent teeth. Group 4: CC preparations without adjacent teeth. 3D analysis was performed on scanned preparations using 3D compare software to examine average absolute discrepancy (AAD) and maximum absolute discrepancy (MAD). A Two-way ANOVA was performed followed by a post-hoc Tukey’s test HSD to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth, preparation design, and the type of intraoral scanner used

Results: For TRI IOS, the AAD for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 20.0±1.8 μm, 19.6±2.4 μm, 15.5±2.7 μm, and 12.9±1.4 μm respectively, whereas the MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 109.7±13.5 μm, 93.2±8.9 μm, 85.6±16.1 μm, and 66.0±11.2 μm respectively. For TRU IOS, the AAD for Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 22.1±3.7 μm, 17.9±2.0 μm, 20.1±5.9 μm, and 14.9±1.8 μm respectively, whereas the MAD for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 130.6±38.5 μm, 92.7±13.5 μm, 89.1±20.4 μm, and 68.0±11.8 μm respectively. Two-way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences between the AAD and MAD of both TRI and TRU IOS (P< .001), as well as the presence or absence of adjacent teeth (P <.001) and preparation design (P<.001).

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, PC preparation scans exhibited lower accuracy than CC scans. In addition, the presence of adjacent teeth decreased the accuracy of both IOS. Comparable accuracy for CC preparation scans were found for both IOS, with the TRI IOS having better accuracy for PC preparation scans.

LLU Discipline

Prosthodontics

Department

Prosthodontics

School

School of Dentistry

First Advisor

Mathew T. Kattadiyil

Second Advisor

Charles J. Goodacre

Third Advisor

Montry S. Suprono

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Degree Level

M.S.

Year Degree Awarded

2019

Date (Title Page)

6-2019

Language

English

Library of Congress/MESH Subject Headings

Photography, Dental -- instrumentation

Type

Thesis

Page Count

x, 30 p.

Digital Format

PDF

Digital Publisher

Loma Linda University Libraries

Usage Rights

This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has granted Loma Linda University a limited, non-exclusive right to make this publication available to the public. The author retains all other copyrights.

Collection

Loma Linda University Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Collection Website

http://scholarsrepository.llu.edu/etd/

Repository

Loma Linda University. Del E. Webb Memorial Library. University Archives

Download

Share

COinS