Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
Identifieur interne : 002F15 ( Pmc/Corpus ); précédent : 002F14; suivant : 002F16Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
Auteurs : Ji-Man ParkSource :
- The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics [ 2005-7806 ] ; 2016.
Abstract
The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs).
The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05).
The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups.
Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.
Url:
DOI: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354
PubMed: 27826385
PubMed Central: 5099127
Links to Exploration step
PMC:5099127Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form</title><author><name sortKey="Park, Ji Man" sort="Park, Ji Man" uniqKey="Park J" first="Ji-Man" last="Park">Ji-Man Park</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="A1">Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">27826385</idno><idno type="pmc">5099127</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5099127</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:5099127</idno><idno type="doi">10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354</idno><date when="2016">2016</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">002F15</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">002F15</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form</title><author><name sortKey="Park, Ji Man" sort="Park, Ji Man" uniqKey="Park J" first="Ji-Man" last="Park">Ji-Man Park</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="A1">Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics</title><idno type="ISSN">2005-7806</idno><idno type="eISSN">2005-7814</idno><imprint><date when="2016">2016</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><sec><title>PURPOSE</title><p>The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs).</p></sec><sec><title>MATERIALS AND METHODS</title><p>The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05).</p></sec><sec><title>RESULTS</title><p>The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups.</p></sec><sec><title>CONCLUSION</title><p>Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.</p></sec></div></front><back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Miyazaki, T" uniqKey="Miyazaki T">T Miyazaki</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hotta, Y" uniqKey="Hotta Y">Y Hotta</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kunii, J" uniqKey="Kunii J">J Kunii</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kuriyama, S" uniqKey="Kuriyama S">S Kuriyama</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tamaki, Y" uniqKey="Tamaki Y">Y Tamaki</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Nedelcu, Rg" uniqKey="Nedelcu R">RG Nedelcu</name></author><author><name sortKey="Persson, As" uniqKey="Persson A">AS Persson</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Schaefer, O" uniqKey="Schaefer O">O Schaefer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Decker, M" uniqKey="Decker M">M Decker</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wittstock, F" uniqKey="Wittstock F">F Wittstock</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kuepper, H" uniqKey="Kuepper H">H Kuepper</name></author><author><name sortKey="Guentsch, A" uniqKey="Guentsch A">A Guentsch</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Logozzo, S" uniqKey="Logozzo S">S Logozzo</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zanetti, Em" uniqKey="Zanetti E">EM Zanetti</name></author><author><name sortKey="Franceschini, G" uniqKey="Franceschini G">G Franceschini</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kilpel, A" uniqKey="Kilpel A">A Kilpelä</name></author><author><name sortKey="M Kynen, A" uniqKey="M Kynen A">A Mäkynen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Seelbach, P" uniqKey="Seelbach P">P Seelbach</name></author><author><name sortKey="Brueckel, C" uniqKey="Brueckel C">C Brueckel</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wostmann, B" uniqKey="Wostmann B">B Wöstmann</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ender, A" uniqKey="Ender A">A Ender</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mehl, A" uniqKey="Mehl A">A Mehl</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ender, A" uniqKey="Ender A">A Ender</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mehl, A" uniqKey="Mehl A">A Mehl</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ender, A" uniqKey="Ender A">A Ender</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mehl, A" uniqKey="Mehl A">A Mehl</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Patzelt, Sb" uniqKey="Patzelt S">SB Patzelt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vonau, S" uniqKey="Vonau S">S Vonau</name></author><author><name sortKey="Stampf, S" uniqKey="Stampf S">S Stampf</name></author><author><name sortKey="Att, W" uniqKey="Att W">W Att</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Patzelt, Sb" uniqKey="Patzelt S">SB Patzelt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Emmanouilidi, A" uniqKey="Emmanouilidi A">A Emmanouilidi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Stampf, S" uniqKey="Stampf S">S Stampf</name></author><author><name sortKey="Strub, Jr" uniqKey="Strub J">JR Strub</name></author><author><name sortKey="Att, W" uniqKey="Att W">W Att</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Papaspyridakos, P" uniqKey="Papaspyridakos P">P Papaspyridakos</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gallucci, Go" uniqKey="Gallucci G">GO Gallucci</name></author><author><name sortKey="Chen, Cj" uniqKey="Chen C">CJ Chen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hanssen, S" uniqKey="Hanssen S">S Hanssen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Naert, I" uniqKey="Naert I">I Naert</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vandenberghe, B" uniqKey="Vandenberghe B">B Vandenberghe</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Andriessen, Fs" uniqKey="Andriessen F">FS Andriessen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Rijkens, Dr" uniqKey="Rijkens D">DR Rijkens</name></author><author><name sortKey="Van Der Meer, Wj" uniqKey="Van Der Meer W">WJ van der Meer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wismeijer, Dw" uniqKey="Wismeijer D">DW Wismeijer</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Van Der Meer, Wj" uniqKey="Van Der Meer W">WJ van der Meer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Andriessen, Fs" uniqKey="Andriessen F">FS Andriessen</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wismeijer, D" uniqKey="Wismeijer D">D Wismeijer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ren, Y" uniqKey="Ren Y">Y Ren</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kim, Sr" uniqKey="Kim S">SR Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lee, Ws" uniqKey="Lee W">WS Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, Wc" uniqKey="Kim W">WC Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, Hy" uniqKey="Kim H">HY Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, Jh" uniqKey="Kim J">JH Kim</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Atzeni, E" uniqKey="Atzeni E">E Atzeni</name></author><author><name sortKey="Iuliano, L" uniqKey="Iuliano L">L Iuliano</name></author><author><name sortKey="Minetola, P" uniqKey="Minetola P">P Minetola</name></author><author><name sortKey="Salmi, A" uniqKey="Salmi A">A Salmi</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Paranhos, Lr" uniqKey="Paranhos L">LR Paranhos</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lima, Cs" uniqKey="Lima C">CS Lima</name></author><author><name sortKey="Da Silva, Rh" uniqKey="Da Silva R">RH da Silva</name></author><author><name sortKey="Daruge Junior, E" uniqKey="Daruge Junior E">E Daruge Júnior</name></author><author><name sortKey="Torres, Fc" uniqKey="Torres F">FC Torres</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Paranhos, Lr" uniqKey="Paranhos L">LR Paranhos</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zaroni, M" uniqKey="Zaroni M">M Zaroni</name></author><author><name sortKey="Carli, Jp" uniqKey="Carli J">JP Carli</name></author><author><name sortKey="Okamoto, R" uniqKey="Okamoto R">R Okamoto</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zogheib, Lv" uniqKey="Zogheib L">LV Zogheib</name></author><author><name sortKey="Torres, Fc" uniqKey="Torres F">FC Torres</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Martin, Cb" uniqKey="Martin C">CB Martin</name></author><author><name sortKey="Chalmers, Ev" uniqKey="Chalmers E">EV Chalmers</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mcintyre, Gt" uniqKey="Mcintyre G">GT McIntyre</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cochrane, H" uniqKey="Cochrane H">H Cochrane</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mossey, Pa" uniqKey="Mossey P">PA Mossey</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Sannino, G" uniqKey="Sannino G">G Sannino</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gloria, F" uniqKey="Gloria F">F Gloria</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schiavetti, R" uniqKey="Schiavetti R">R Schiavetti</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ottria, L" uniqKey="Ottria L">L Ottria</name></author><author><name sortKey="Barlattani, A" uniqKey="Barlattani A">A Barlattani</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Mehl, A" uniqKey="Mehl A">A Mehl</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ender, A" uniqKey="Ender A">A Ender</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mormann, W" uniqKey="Mormann W">W Mörmann</name></author><author><name sortKey="Attin, T" uniqKey="Attin T">T Attin</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kim, Sy" uniqKey="Kim S">SY Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, Mj" uniqKey="Kim M">MJ Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Han, Js" uniqKey="Han J">JS Han</name></author><author><name sortKey="Yeo, Is" uniqKey="Yeo I">IS Yeo</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lim, Yj" uniqKey="Lim Y">YJ Lim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kwon, Hb" uniqKey="Kwon H">HB Kwon</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ender, A" uniqKey="Ender A">A Ender</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mehl, A" uniqKey="Mehl A">A Mehl</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="An, S" uniqKey="An S">S An</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kim, S" uniqKey="Kim S">S Kim</name></author><author><name sortKey="Choi, H" uniqKey="Choi H">H Choi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lee, Jh" uniqKey="Lee J">JH Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Moon, Hs" uniqKey="Moon H">HS Moon</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Keul, C" uniqKey="Keul C">C Keul</name></author><author><name sortKey="Stawarczyk, B" uniqKey="Stawarczyk B">B Stawarczyk</name></author><author><name sortKey="Erdelt, Kj" uniqKey="Erdelt K">KJ Erdelt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Beuer, F" uniqKey="Beuer F">F Beuer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Edelhoff, D" uniqKey="Edelhoff D">D Edelhoff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Guth, Jf" uniqKey="Guth J">JF Güth</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Brawek, Pk" uniqKey="Brawek P">PK Brawek</name></author><author><name sortKey="Wolfart, S" uniqKey="Wolfart S">S Wolfart</name></author><author><name sortKey="Endres, L" uniqKey="Endres L">L Endres</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kirsten, A" uniqKey="Kirsten A">A Kirsten</name></author><author><name sortKey="Reich, S" uniqKey="Reich S">S Reich</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Sturdevant, Jr" uniqKey="Sturdevant J">JR Sturdevant</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bayne, Sc" uniqKey="Bayne S">SC Bayne</name></author><author><name sortKey="Heymann, Ho" uniqKey="Heymann H">HO Heymann</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Rupf, S" uniqKey="Rupf S">S Rupf</name></author><author><name sortKey="Berger, H" uniqKey="Berger H">H Berger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Buchter, A" uniqKey="Buchter A">A Buchter</name></author><author><name sortKey="Harth, V" uniqKey="Harth V">V Harth</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ong, Mf" uniqKey="Ong M">MF Ong</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hannig, M" uniqKey="Hannig M">M Hannig</name></author></analytic></biblStruct></listBibl></div1></back></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">J Adv Prosthodont</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">J Adv Prosthodont</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JAP</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2005-7806</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2005-7814</issn><publisher><publisher-name>The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">27826385</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">5099127</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Original Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid" authenticated="true">http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0018-1166</contrib-id><name><surname>Park</surname><given-names>Ji-Man</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1"></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="A1">Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.</aff><author-notes><corresp>Corresponding author: Ji-Man Park. Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Gwanak Dental Hospital, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea. Tel. +82 2 6747 6535: <email>jimarn@snu.ac.kr</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>10</month><year>2016</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>21</day><month>10</month><year>2016</year></pub-date><volume>8</volume><issue>5</issue><fpage>354</fpage><lpage>362</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>05</day><month>2</month><year>2016</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>24</day><month>6</month><year>2016</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>08</day><month>8</month><year>2016</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>© 2016 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2016</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/"><license-p>This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/</ext-link>) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><sec><title>PURPOSE</title><p>The trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs).</p></sec><sec><title>MATERIALS AND METHODS</title><p>The phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05).</p></sec><sec><title>RESULTS</title><p>The average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups.</p></sec><sec><title>CONCLUSION</title><p>Except for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Intraoral scanner</kwd><kwd>Digital impression</kwd><kwd>Reproducibility of intraoral scanner</kwd><kwd>Trueness</kwd><kwd>Precision</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><award-group><funding-source country="KR"><institution-wrap><institution>National Research Foundation of Korea</institution><institution-id institution-id-type="CrossRef">http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003725</institution-id></institution-wrap></funding-source><award-id>NRF-2013R1A1A1076022</award-id></award-group></funding-group></article-meta></front><body><sec sec-type="intro"><title>INTRODUCTION</title><p>With the recent acceleration of the application of digital technology in the dental medicine, various intraoral scanners (IOSs) that can acquire intraoral images without using the impression material have been introduced in addition to the existing CAD/CAM system.<xref rid="B1" ref-type="bibr">1</xref></p><p>According to Nedelcu et al. and Schaefer et al.,<xref rid="B2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref><xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref> IOS can be classified into the still image acquisition and video acquisition methods according to the image recombination. Of the IOS distributed currently in use, CEREC AC Bluecam, E4D dentist and iTero (first generation) adopted the former method while the latter is adopted by E4D NEVO, Fastscan, Lava COS, Trios and Zfx Intrascan. Due to its nature that the scanner itself has to move in the narrow oral cavity as compared with the desktop scanner, there are various scanning technologies. For instance, E4D is operated by optical coherence tomography. Also, active triangulation is applied for CEREC AC Bluecam, Fastscan and Lava COS while confocal microscopic technology is adopted in iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan. The depth of field depends on these scanning technologies and has an influence on the learning curve of the device. The powder is used to enhance scanner's recognition rate and shorten scan time by reducing reflection on the tooth surface with various materials. CEREC AC Bluecam, Fastscan and Lava COS always require powder. On the other hand, E4D dentist does not require powder in most cases and iTero, PlanScan, Trios and Zfx Intrascan do not require the application of reflective agent.<xref rid="B4" ref-type="bibr">4</xref> The literatures comparing the accuracy of IOSs largely concerned two subjects; the measurement of the internal gap of fabricated crowns and the measurement of the deviations after superposition of two images. There are various studies on these. In particular, the former internal gap study includes Seelbach et al.'s studyon the single crown and Schaefer et al.'s on the partial crown while the latter image superposition study includes Nedelcu et al.'s study on simplified and standardized scan body, Ender et al.'s on full arch, and Patzelt et al.'s on edentulous jaws.<xref rid="B2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref><xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref><xref rid="B5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref><xref rid="B6" ref-type="bibr">6</xref><xref rid="B7" ref-type="bibr">7</xref><xref rid="B8" ref-type="bibr">8</xref><xref rid="B9" ref-type="bibr">9</xref><xref rid="B10" ref-type="bibr">10</xref> Papaspyridakos and Wismeijer reported the investigation on the accuracy of digital implant impressions with IOS.<xref rid="B11" ref-type="bibr">11</xref><xref rid="B12" ref-type="bibr">12</xref><xref rid="B13" ref-type="bibr">13</xref> In the study on the measurement of the gap of crowns, there is a limitation in determining the performance of the scanner itself due to the uncontrollable factors occurring in the fabrication of crowns while the image superposition study suggests neither the relationship with the actual crown nor the data for the specific important sites such as margins since this is a mere comparison of images. If the data on each section of the cavity form according to various restorations are measured and compared, it will be possible to compare the 3-dimensional reproduction capability of digital IOSs that expresses the crucial parts of the abutment affecting the fits of crowns.</p><p>The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of several intraoral scanners (IOS) by the restoration type. For this purpose, each intraoral scanner's precision and trueness were investigated by superposing 3-dimensioanl images and measuring the deviation at the main sites of the abutment in each section. Additionally, the differences depending on the scanning technology and characteristics of the scanner were compared and analyzed. The primary null hypothesis was that the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners did not differ by the restoration type and preparation location. The secondary null hypothesis was that the trueness of 3-dimensional images were not influenced by the scanning technology and characteristics of the scanners.</p></sec><sec sec-type="materials|methods"><title>MATERIALS AND METHODS</title><p>In this study, a phantom model containing prefabricated abutment teeth was prepared. Right maxillary incisor and canine were selected as abutment teeth for a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Right maxillary second molar was designated as an abutment for MO inlay, and the right mandibular second molar as that for a crown. Artificial tooth with an ideal shape were arranged at the left dentition for the occlusal stability during the digital buccal bite registration (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Fig. 1</xref>). In order to obtain standardized preparations and to avoid an arbitrary preparation by a practitioner, the abutment teeth that had been prepared in precision processing by the manufacturer (A50H-set Prepared teeth assortment; Nissin) were used. To keep the reflectivity similar to the natural tooth, the metal tooth was not used. The setscrews which fixate the individual teeth were tightened firmly and cyanoacrylate cement was applied to prevent unwanted screw loosening. The tooth on the phantom was not removed or added and no external force was applied during the experiment. All the experiments were carried out at 23 ± 1℃ and 50 ± 5% relative humidity.</p><p>In order to obtain the reference STL file, a desktop scanner (7 Series; Dental Wings Inc.) with the trueness of 15 µm was used. This scanner uses a laser light source with 5 axes of freedom, and thus is favorable for reproduction of an undercut or complicated shapes. Also, it has a high scanning capacity (140 × 140 × 100 mm), which enables scanning of a full arch restoration. 5 types of IOSs were used in this study: iTero (1st generation; ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC.), E4D dentist (initial version; E4D Technologies), Zfx Intrascan (Zfx GmhH), Trios (2<sup>nd</sup> generation; 3shape A/S) and Fastscan (IOS Technologies, Inc.). These were classified by the scanning technology such as Fastscan with the active triangulation, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan with the confocal microscopy technology, and E4D dentist with the optical coherence tomography (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>A phantom containing prepared teeth was scanned using 5 different IOSs, and the respective test group was scanned 4 times. Scanning was performed according to the instruction of each manufacturer. In iTero and E4D groups, scanning was guided according to software instructions and abutment scan was finished first, followed by remaining teeth scanning. When scanning with Zfx Intrascan and Trios, occlusal sweep was done first and was followed by buccal and lingual sweeps in case of upper arch. Buccal and lingual sweeps were changed for lower arch scan. In case of Fastscan, posterior sections on both sides and anterior section were scanned separately and stitched together afterwards. Since Fastscan required the use of spray, its scan was performed at the last turn. 4 pairs of 3D data were acquired for each IOS. Data were obtained directly from the scanner of Fastscan and Zfx Intrascan while files were obtained from the manufacturer of E4D dentist, iTero and Trios.</p><p>According to ISO 12836, the deviation of measurements between the reference model and the intraoral scan model was termed the "trueness" of impression technique, and the deviation of measurements between digital models of the same intraoral scanner was "precision" of impression technique.</p><p>For the image superposition, a reverse engineering program (Rapidform; INUS Technology Inc.) was used. The reference STL file and intraoral scan STL files were superposed. Superposition was performed as follows: three points A, B and C were spotted on images, and while matching these, the two data were moved closer to each other, then, automerging was performed by computation using a command 'fine' (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Fig. 2A</xref>). After superposition, the tooth model was divided in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and right and left diagonal directions into a total of 8 sections. For the trueness investigation, the distance between the reference data and intraoral scan data were measured at 4 points (marginal, axial, line-angle, occlusal) on each section (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Fig. 2B</xref>). In case of precision measurement, the distance between two intraoral scans within the same group at the aforementioned points on each section. For the mesiodistal and buccolingual comparison, mesial, diatal, buccal, and lingual sections were investigated and diagonal sections were excluded in the measurement.</p><p>The inlay was measured likewise. After superposition, section was created in the mesiodistal and buccolingual direction of the tooth model, and the distance between the two data were measured at the corresponding 4 points in these sections. For the comparison of box and non-box regions, sections in the mesiodistal directions were investigated (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Fig. 2C</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Fig. 2D</xref>).</p><p>The difference in trueness and precision of intraoral scanners, and trueness according to preparation design, preparation site, and scanning technology were verified by analysis of variance (ANOVA). When the difference was significant, Tukey HSD test was used in multiple comparisons. In addition, independent two-samples t-test was used to compare the trueness according to image acquisition and necessity of coating. Data were analyzed using a statistical program IBM SPSS version 18.0 (IBM Corporation). The significance level was set at <italic>P</italic> = .05.</p></sec><sec sec-type="results"><title>RESULTS</title><p>Each scanner had a different resolution, leading to the difference in the details of the model, and the number of polygones were in the order of iTero (42,687), Trios (28,280), Fastscan (20,210), E4D dentist (17,607), and Zfx intrascan (10,432) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">Fig. 3</xref>). Scanners used in this study showed the deviations in trueness and precision of 70.1 µm and 58.9 µm on average, respectively. The average deviations in trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were in the range of 40 to 60 µm and 10 to 30 µm, respectively, while those of Zfx Intrascan and E4D dentist were in the range of 80 to 120 µm and 90 to 140 µm, respectively, which were significantly higher than the other three scanners (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">Table 2</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Fig. 4</xref>). In comparison by the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge irrespective of intraoral scanners. While no significant difference in overall mean trueness was observed among margin, axial wall, line-angle, and occlusal site, the trueness at line-angle was higher than those at the others in E4D dentist group. In comparison by the section, the mesiodistal direction showed significantly higher deviation than the buccolingual direction. Also, while the trueness is lower in the box overall, there was no significant difference in the trueness between the box and the non-box with Fastscan and iTero (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref>). Trueness was observed to be in the increasing order of Fastscan with the active triangulation, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan with the parallel confocal technology, and E4D dentist with the optical coherence tomography. In addition, the group using powder displayed lower trueness which means higher accuracy. On the other hand, no significant difference in trueness was observed between the still image acquisition and the video acquisition groups (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T5">Table 5</xref>).</p></sec><sec sec-type="discussion"><title>DISCUSSION</title><p>The trueness and precision of IOS are among the most fundamental evaluation elements for the clinical application of the digital impression method. Although the evaluation method via image superposition has a fundamental error and limitation in the selection and superposition of random points on the program, and does not necessarily suggest the relationship with the actual restoration, it can still play an important role in the comparative evaluation of each IOS. In this <italic>in vitro</italic> study, the first null hypothesis was rejected because in general, the intraoral scanner had lower trueness in the inlay box, and it is considered that this was potentially caused by the limitation in the scan depth of IOS and the adjacent teeth undercut that hampered the image acquisition. For the trueness depending on the scanning technology and characteristics of scanners, the second null hypothesis was rejected because the acquired image displayed deviations in trueness by the scanning technology and characteristics of scanners.</p><p>A desktop scanner, Dental Wings 3D scanner, was used as a reference scanner as in previous studies,<xref rid="B14" ref-type="bibr">14</xref><xref rid="B15" ref-type="bibr">15</xref><xref rid="B16" ref-type="bibr">16</xref><xref rid="B17" ref-type="bibr">17</xref> and the reason that an IOS was not selected as a reference scanner was that the accumulation of errors caused by sudden actions during scanning due to the high degree of freedom could lead to the bending of the model. A trueness of up to 15 µm was reported on the reference scanner for a single measurement case of the plaster model,<xref rid="B18" ref-type="bibr">18</xref> and it was shown that the internal and marginal gaps of the crown on the experimental model fabricated using this scanner were up to the range of 23.45 to 42.43 µm.<xref rid="B19" ref-type="bibr">19</xref> In this study, the precision of this reference scanner was measured, which was 35.3 ± 13.9 µm.</p><p>There have been many studies which evaluated the performance of intraoral scanners by measuring fit of restoration or superimposing scan data. Seelbach et al. fabricated a single crown using CEREC, iTero and Lava COS, and measured the internal gap and marginal fit, which were 29 to 88 µm and 30 to 41 µm, respectively, in agreement with the values measured on the crown fabricated by the conventional method.<xref rid="B5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref> In a study of van der Meer et al. using the implant scan body, the distance errors between the scan bodies measured by CEREC, iTero and Lava COS were 79.6 to 81.6 µm um, 61.1 to 70.5 µm and 14.6 to 23.5 µm, respectively.<xref rid="B13" ref-type="bibr">13</xref> Mehl et al. analyzed the accuracy by superposing the model data acquired from a desktop scanner and CEREC AC Bluecam, and reported that the deviation was 19.2 µm for a single tooth and 35 µm for a quadrant.<xref rid="B20" ref-type="bibr">20</xref> Kim et al. scanned a polyurethane model fabricated by milling process using scan data of iTero and a traditional plaster model with a desktop scanner, and compared the data.<xref rid="B21" ref-type="bibr">21</xref> They reported that the deviation was 23.9 ± 17.6 µm for a single tooth and the model fabricated using IOS showed a significantly higher deviation than the traditionally fabricated model, which, however, was clinically acceptable.</p><p>Ender et al. reported that a deviation of 58.6 µm was observed in the comparison of accuracy in the full arch models between CEREC AC system and a reference scanner, and a deviation of 32.4 µm was observed in the analysis of precision by comparing between the CEREC data.<xref rid="B22" ref-type="bibr">22</xref> They concluded that this had a significantly lower accuracy than the traditional method. In their further study, it was reported that the deviations in accuracy and precision for CEREC Bluecam, iTero, Lava COS and Omnicam were up to 29.4 to 44.9 µm um and 19.5 to 63.0 µm, respectively,<xref rid="B8" ref-type="bibr">8</xref> which leads to a conclusion that these IOSs could be applied to full mouth scan cases within the limitations of <italic>in-vitro</italic> study. Patzelt et al. also reported studies on the accuracy of full arch scan and fully edentulous jaw digitization.<xref rid="B9" ref-type="bibr">9</xref><xref rid="B10" ref-type="bibr">10</xref> As the intraoral scanner is a handheld device, the image stitching error from the uneven and abrupt movement of scanner wand might cause the deformation of scan data. These studies have a great significance because they were focused on the deformation of entire arch. This study was conducted to investigate another characteristic of intraoral scanner. The depth of field is related to not only the difficulty of scanning but also the accuracy of scan data. Learning curve of intraoral scanners with narrow depth of field is very long because the operator has to keep distance from patient's teeth while watching computer display. When the maximum range that intraoral scanner can reach is short, the image acquisition could not be possible at the long tooth with deep preparation enclosed by tall adjacent teeth. In this study, the accuracy of various intraoral scanners was evaluated at the microscopic level of the abutment teeth by sectioning and picking up the anatomic structures which might be critical for the adaptation of restorations.</p><p>In studies that compared the accuracy of IOSs, Nedelcu et al. analyzed the accuracy and precision of 4 IOSs by the superposition method based on a desktop scanner as a reference, showing that the accuracy and precision of CEREC were better than those of E4D dentist.<xref rid="B2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref> They suggested that this was because E4D dentist did not have sufficient transition area that was relatively clearly defined, and much noise appeared on the surface. In this study, iTero displayed better results compared to E4D dentist and Zfx Intrascan, which was in agreement with previous studies.</p><p>Schaefer et al. reported that marginal discrepancy of a partial crown (MOD inlay) fabricated using iTero was up to 90 µm, while An et al. analyzed the marginal fits of zirconia coping fabricated using iTero by a replica technique, which was shown to be up to 103.05 µm for a single tooth.<xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref><xref rid="B23" ref-type="bibr">23</xref> Also, Keul et al. performed experiments similarly and reported that the marginal opening of 4-unit zirconia framework was up to 127.23 µm.<xref rid="B24" ref-type="bibr">24</xref> In our study, an abutment scanned by iTero displayed higher deviations in the increasing order of the inlay, crown and bridge, and this trend is consistent with preceding studies. Also, in general, the trueness of IOS was lower in the fixed dental prosthesis, which can be attributed to the errors in the image acquisition and stitching processes due to the presence of the glossy pontic space with less surface characteristics.</p><p>Brawek et al. measured the fits of the crown fabricated using Lava COS and CEREC AC, and showed that the internal gap was larger than the marginal gap.<xref rid="B25" ref-type="bibr">25</xref> They suggested that this larger internal gap could be attributed to the fact that there was a lower limit in the size of the milling tool for processing of the interior of the restoration, and thus the software relief had to be made to process the angled corner of the interior of the restoration, which was compounded by the errors in replica technique.<xref rid="B26" ref-type="bibr">26</xref> In this study, the deviations between the marginal and internal gaps did not show any significant difference unlike previous studies, which can be attributed to the difference in the experimental method since this study only compared the abutment forms observed on the scan data. Also, in comparison of sections, the trueness in the mesiodistal section was lower than in the buccolingual section, and it is considered that this was because multiple scans were necessary at the mesiodistal site due to the undercut by adjacent teeth, and subsequently the amount of data to be stitched was larger.</p><p>There are various factors that affect the reproducibility of an IOS, including the scanning technology, data processing algorithm, whether or not to use powder and image acquisition method. Active triangulation is a traditional scanning technology and has been frequently applied in the desktop scanner, which offers the highest trueness if the condition is right. In comparison, the parallel confocal technology does not require a certain distance for focusing, and thus images can be acquired regardless of whether the scanner tip is attached to the teeth when the oral cavity is scanned. On the other hand, the optical coherence tomography has a high resolution that can create an image of the micromorphology of the abutment by combining the optical interference phenomenon and the confocal microscopy technology. In this study, the deviations in trueness and precision increased in the order of Fastscan with the active triangulation technology, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan with the parallel confocal technology, and E4D dentist with the optical coherence tomography technology. In a study of Nedelcu et al. on CEREC, E4D dentist, iTero and Lava COS, the better result was obtained in the order of the active triangulation, confocal microscopy and optical coherence tomography, consistent with this study.<xref rid="B2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref> However, Ender et al. and Seelbach et al. studied using CEREC, iTero and Lava COS, and reported no notable difference between the active triangulation and parallel confocal scanners,<xref rid="B5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref><xref rid="B7" ref-type="bibr">7</xref> while Schaefer et al. suggested that the confocal microscopy displayed higher accuracy than the active triangulation.<xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref> These latter studies are in disagreement with our study, and thus yet another different result may be expected in the actual clinical setting, which warrants further studies on this matter.</p><p>In studies of Ender et al. and Seelbach et al., similar accuracy was observed regardless of the use of powder while Schaefer et al. observed a significant higher accuracy in the powder free group.<xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref><xref rid="B5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref><xref rid="B7" ref-type="bibr">7</xref> In contrast, Nedelcu et al. suggested that the group using powder showed higher accuracy, in consistent with our study.<xref rid="B2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref> In addition, they prepared an experimental group with excessive spray coating, and investigated its impact on the accuracy, which yielded no significant difference. Rupf et al. reported that 4.6 × 10<sup>6</sup> of fine and ultrafine particles were accumulated per minute on average under conventional dental suction if scanning spray was applied, and recommended high volume evacuation for the prevention of the exposure to fine or ultrafine particles.<xref rid="B27" ref-type="bibr">27</xref> Although the use of powder can increase the scanning speed and the ease of scan, inconvenience to patients may be caused during the application and removal process of powder, and the powder remaining in the oral cavity may exert a harmful effect on the body.</p><p>Schaefer et al. and Nedelcu et al. classified IOSs largely into video acquisition and still image acquisition types depending on the scanning method,<xref rid="B2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref><xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref> and Ender et al. analyzed the accuracy of Bluecam and Lava COS by superposing images from these scanners with those of the reference scanner, which showed that there was no significant difference in the deviations between the video acquisition and still image acquisition methods.<xref rid="B6" ref-type="bibr">6</xref> Their further study on CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, iTero and Lava COS showed similar results.<xref rid="B7" ref-type="bibr">7</xref><xref rid="B8" ref-type="bibr">8</xref> Also, the studies of Schaefer et al. and Seelbach et al. did not show any significant difference in the accuracy between the video acquisition and still image acquisition types.<xref rid="B3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref><xref rid="B5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref> Likewise, in this study, a significant difference in trueness between the two scanning methods was not observed. However, the video acquisition method has a clear advantage that scanning is convenient and images can be monitored during scanning.</p><p>A limitation of this study is that the data on the restoration itself fabricated using IOSs could not be provided. Also, as actual scanning conditions were not taken into consideration in this study, the lower trueness is expected in the actual clinical setting than in this study due to the level of patient's compliance, the skill of a practitioner, the presence of saliva during scanning, reflectivity of the tooth and the intraoral structure. Therefore, it is considered that further study using the final restoration in the clinical setting is necessary.</p></sec><sec sec-type="conclusions"><title>CONCLUSION</title><p>Except for 2 intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. The difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation out line form, the scanning technology and the application of power.</p></sec></body><back><fn-group><fn fn-type="supported-by"><p>This work was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (NRF-2013R1A1A1076022).</p></fn></fn-group><ref-list><ref id="B1"><label>1</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Miyazaki</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name><name><surname>Hotta</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name><name><surname>Kunii</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Kuriyama</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Tamaki</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience</article-title><source>Dent Mater J</source><year>2009</year><volume>28</volume><fpage>44</fpage><lpage>56</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19280967</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B2"><label>2</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nedelcu</surname><given-names>RG</given-names></name><name><surname>Persson</surname><given-names>AS</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis</article-title><source>J Prosthet Dent</source><year>2014</year><volume>112</volume><fpage>1461</fpage><lpage>1471</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25134995</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B3"><label>3</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schaefer</surname><given-names>O</given-names></name><name><surname>Decker</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Wittstock</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Kuepper</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Guentsch</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Impact of digital impression techniques on the adaption of ceramic partial crowns in vitro</article-title><source>J Dent</source><year>2014</year><volume>42</volume><fpage>677</fpage><lpage>683</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24508541</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B4"><label>4</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Logozzo</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Zanetti</surname><given-names>EM</given-names></name><name><surname>Franceschini</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Kilpelä</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mäkynen</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry</article-title><source>Opt Laser Eng</source><year>2014</year><volume>54</volume><fpage>203</fpage><lpage>221</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B5"><label>5</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Seelbach</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Brueckel</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Wöstmann</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow</article-title><source>Clin Oral Investig</source><year>2013</year><volume>17</volume><fpage>1759</fpage><lpage>1764</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B6"><label>6</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ender</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mehl</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study</article-title><source>Int J Comput Dent</source><year>2011</year><volume>14</volume><fpage>11</fpage><lpage>21</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21657122</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B7"><label>7</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ender</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mehl</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems</article-title><source>Int J Comput Dent</source><year>2013</year><volume>16</volume><fpage>11</fpage><lpage>21</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23641661</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B8"><label>8</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ender</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mehl</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions</article-title><source>Quintessence Int</source><year>2015</year><volume>46</volume><fpage>9</fpage><lpage>17</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25019118</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B9"><label>9</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Patzelt</surname><given-names>SB</given-names></name><name><surname>Vonau</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Stampf</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Att</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws</article-title><source>J Am Dent Assoc</source><year>2013</year><volume>144</volume><fpage>914</fpage><lpage>920</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23904578</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B10"><label>10</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Patzelt</surname><given-names>SB</given-names></name><name><surname>Emmanouilidi</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Stampf</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Strub</surname><given-names>JR</given-names></name><name><surname>Att</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners</article-title><source>Clin Oral Investig</source><year>2014</year><volume>18</volume><fpage>1687</fpage><lpage>1694</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B11"><label>11</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Papaspyridakos</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Gallucci</surname><given-names>GO</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>CJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Hanssen</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Naert</surname><given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Vandenberghe</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes</article-title><source>Clin Oral Implants Res</source><year>2016</year><volume>27</volume><fpage>465</fpage><lpage>472</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25682892</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B12"><label>12</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Andriessen</surname><given-names>FS</given-names></name><name><surname>Rijkens</surname><given-names>DR</given-names></name><name><surname>van der Meer</surname><given-names>WJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Wismeijer</surname><given-names>DW</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study</article-title><source>J Prosthet Dent</source><year>2014</year><volume>111</volume><fpage>186</fpage><lpage>194</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24210732</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B13"><label>13</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>van der Meer</surname><given-names>WJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Andriessen</surname><given-names>FS</given-names></name><name><surname>Wismeijer</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Ren</surname><given-names>Y</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology</article-title><source>PLoS One</source><year>2012</year><volume>7</volume><fpage>e43312</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22937030</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B14"><label>14</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>SR</given-names></name><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>WS</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>WC</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>HY</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>JH</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Digitization of dental alginate impression: Three-dimensional evaluation of point cloud</article-title><source>Dent Mater J</source><year>2015</year><volume>34</volume><fpage>835</fpage><lpage>840</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">26632232</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B15"><label>15</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Atzeni</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Iuliano</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Minetola</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Salmi</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Proposal of an innovative benchmark for accuracy evaluation of dental crown manufacturing</article-title><source>Comput Biol Med</source><year>2012</year><volume>42</volume><fpage>548</fpage><lpage>555</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22364825</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B16"><label>16</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Paranhos</surname><given-names>LR</given-names></name><name><surname>Lima</surname><given-names>CS</given-names></name><name><surname>da Silva</surname><given-names>RH</given-names></name><name><surname>Daruge Júnior</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Torres</surname><given-names>FC</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Correlation between maxillary central incisor crown morphology and mandibular dental arch form in normal occlusion subjects</article-title><source>Braz Dent J</source><year>2012</year><volume>23</volume><fpage>149</fpage><lpage>153</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22666773</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B17"><label>17</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Paranhos</surname><given-names>LR</given-names></name><name><surname>Zaroni</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Carli</surname><given-names>JP</given-names></name><name><surname>Okamoto</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Zogheib</surname><given-names>LV</given-names></name><name><surname>Torres</surname><given-names>FC</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Association between the facial type and morphology of the upper central incisor in normal occlusion subjects</article-title><source>J Contemp Dent Pract</source><year>2014</year><volume>15</volume><fpage>29</fpage><lpage>33</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24939261</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B18"><label>18</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>CB</given-names></name><name><surname>Chalmers</surname><given-names>EV</given-names></name><name><surname>McIntyre</surname><given-names>GT</given-names></name><name><surname>Cochrane</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Mossey</surname><given-names>PA</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Orthodontic scanners: what's available?</article-title><source>J Orthod</source><year>2015</year><volume>42</volume><fpage>136</fpage><lpage>143</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25939980</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B19"><label>19</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sannino</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Gloria</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Schiavetti</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Ottria</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Barlattani</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Dental Wings CAD/CAM system precision: an internal and marginal fit sperimental analisys</article-title><source>Oral Implantol (Rome)</source><year>2009</year><volume>2</volume><fpage>11</fpage><lpage>20</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B20"><label>20</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mehl</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Ender</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mörmann</surname><given-names>W</given-names></name><name><surname>Attin</surname><given-names>T</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera</article-title><source>Int J Comput Dent</source><year>2009</year><volume>12</volume><fpage>11</fpage><lpage>28</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19213357</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B21"><label>21</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>SY</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>MJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Han</surname><given-names>JS</given-names></name><name><surname>Yeo</surname><given-names>IS</given-names></name><name><surname>Lim</surname><given-names>YJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Kwon</surname><given-names>HB</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging</article-title><source>Int J Prosthodont</source><year>2013</year><volume>26</volume><fpage>161</fpage><lpage>163</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23476911</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B22"><label>22</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ender</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Mehl</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision</article-title><source>J Prosthet Dent</source><year>2013</year><volume>109</volume><fpage>121</fpage><lpage>128</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23395338</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B23"><label>23</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>An</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Choi</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>JH</given-names></name><name><surname>Moon</surname><given-names>HS</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner</article-title><source>J Prosthet Dent</source><year>2014</year><volume>112</volume><fpage>1171</fpage><lpage>1175</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24951386</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B24"><label>24</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Keul</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><name><surname>Stawarczyk</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name><name><surname>Erdelt</surname><given-names>KJ</given-names></name><name><surname>Beuer</surname><given-names>F</given-names></name><name><surname>Edelhoff</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Güth</surname><given-names>JF</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization-a laboratory study</article-title><source>Dent Mater</source><year>2014</year><volume>30</volume><fpage>400</fpage><lpage>407</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24522150</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B25"><label>25</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brawek</surname><given-names>PK</given-names></name><name><surname>Wolfart</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Endres</surname><given-names>L</given-names></name><name><surname>Kirsten</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Reich</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow-the comparison of two systems</article-title><source>Clin Oral Investig</source><year>2013</year><volume>17</volume><fpage>2119</fpage><lpage>2125</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="B26"><label>26</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sturdevant</surname><given-names>JR</given-names></name><name><surname>Bayne</surname><given-names>SC</given-names></name><name><surname>Heymann</surname><given-names>HO</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Margin gap size of ceramic inlays using second-generation CAD/CAM equipment</article-title><source>J Esthet Dent</source><year>1999</year><volume>11</volume><fpage>206</fpage><lpage>214</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10825877</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="B27"><label>27</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rupf</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Berger</surname><given-names>H</given-names></name><name><surname>Buchter</surname><given-names>A</given-names></name><name><surname>Harth</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>Ong</surname><given-names>MF</given-names></name><name><surname>Hannig</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Exposure of patient and dental staff to fine and ultrafine particles from scanning spray</article-title><source>Clin Oral Investig</source><year>2015</year><volume>19</volume><fpage>823</fpage><lpage>830</lpage></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back><floats-group><fig id="F1" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 1</label><caption><title>Dental models with various preparation designs. Right maxillary incisor and canine (#11, 13); 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis, right maxillary second molar (#17); MO inlay, and right mandibular second molar (#47); crown.</title></caption><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-g001"></graphic></fig><fig id="F2" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 2</label><caption><title>Illustration of the sectioning of the superposed datasets and selected sites from preparation ouline form. (A) section lines of crown and bridge groups (sections 1, 3, 5, and 7 were investigated for the mesiodistal and buccolingual comparison). (B) measured sites for crown and bridge groups. (C) section line of inlay group (sections a and b were inspected for the box and non-box comparision). (D) sites from preparation outline form for inlay group.</title></caption><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-g002"></graphic></fig><fig id="F3" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 3</label><caption><title>Number of polygons for selected maxillary incisor for the comparison of the each IOS's resolution.</title></caption><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-g003"></graphic></fig><fig id="F4" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Fig. 4</label><caption><title>Illustration of absolute mean trueness and precision values of intraoral scanners. Same letters denote significant differences in between the groups at the 5% significance level.</title></caption><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-g004"></graphic></fig><table-wrap id="T1" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 1</label><caption><title>Characteristics of intraoral scanners</title></caption><alternatives><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-i001"></graphic><table frame="hsides" rules="rows"><col width="22%" span="1"></col><col width="15%" span="1"></col><col width="25%" span="1"></col><col width="11%" span="1"></col><col width="10%" span="1"></col><col width="17%" span="1"></col><thead><tr><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">System</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Manufacturer</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Scanner technology</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Light source</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Acquisition</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Necessity of coating</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">E4D dentist (initial version)</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">D4D Technologies</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Optical coherence tomography</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Laser</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Still imaging</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None but occasionally</td></tr><tr><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Fastscan</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">IOS Technologies</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Active triangulation and Scheimpflug principle</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Laser</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Still imaging</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Yes</td></tr><tr><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">iTero (1<sup>st</sup> generation)</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Align Technologies</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Parallel confocal microscopy</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Red laser</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Still imaging</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td></tr><tr><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Trios (2<sup>nd</sup> generation)</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">3shape A/S</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Confocal microscopy</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Not disclosed</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Video</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td></tr><tr><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Zfx Intrascan</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">ZFX GmbH</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Confocal microscopy and Moiree effect detection</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Laser</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Video</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</td></tr></tbody></table></alternatives></table-wrap><table-wrap id="T2" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 2</label><caption><title>Trueness and precision of each intraoral scanner</title></caption><alternatives><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-i002"></graphic><table frame="hsides" rules="rows"><col width="33%" span="1"></col><col width="33%" span="1"></col><col width="34%" span="1"></col><thead><tr><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Scanner</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Trueness<break></break>Mean value ± SD (µm)</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Precision<break></break>Mean value ± SD (µm)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">E4D dentist</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">114.2 ± 80.7<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">97.6 ± 109.2<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Fastscan</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">45.2 ± 29.8<sup>c</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">26.0 ± 24.4<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">iTero</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">52.1 ± 38.8<sup>c</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">25.8 ± 22.5<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Trios</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">49.7 ± 36.6<sup>c</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.0 ± 12.1<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Zfx Intrascan</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">89.4 ± 64.2<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">132.3 ± 124.4<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Overall mean</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">70.1 ± 60.0</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">58.9 ± 89.2</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Dental wings (reference scanner)</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Not determined (≤ 15 manufacturer)</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">35.3 ± 42.4</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">F</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">132.3<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">339.7<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td></tr></tbody></table></alternatives><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>Multiple comparison: a > b > c, <italic>P</italic> < .01: <sup>**</sup>, <italic>P</italic> < .05: <sup>*</sup></p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="T3" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 3</label><caption><title>Trueness according to the preparation design</title></caption><alternatives><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-i003"></graphic><table frame="hsides" rules="rows"><col width="17.71%" span="1"></col><col width="14.79%" span="1"></col><col width="14.79%" span="1"></col><col width="14.79%" span="1"></col><col width="14.79%" span="1"></col><col width="14.79%" span="1"></col><col width="8.33%" span="1"></col><thead><tr><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Scanner</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Crown</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Inlay</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Bridge</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">F</th><th valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">E4D dentist</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">95.7 ± 67.4<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">95.2 ± 62.6<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">130.6 ± 89.0<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.8<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Fastscan</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">39.0 ± 26.6<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">32.9 ± 19.3<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">52.8 ± 32.3<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">21.9<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">iTero</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">38.1 ± 21.4<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">35.3 ± 25.5<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">65.3 ± 44.5<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">36.9<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Trios</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">28.2 ± 19.3<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">50.8 ± 42.2<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">60.0 ± 36.5<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">37.2<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Zfx Intrascan</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">70.3 ± 50.3<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">94.5 ± 57.2<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">97.1 ± 70.8<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">8.0<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Overall mean</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">54.3 ± 48.4<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">61.7 ± 52.5<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">81.2 ± 65.5<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">50.6<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000</td></tr></tbody></table></alternatives><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>Multiple comparison: a > b, <italic>P</italic> < .01: <sup>**</sup>, <italic>P</italic> < .05: <sup>*</sup></p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="T4" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 4</label><caption><title>Trueness according to the preparation site and in the inlay box</title></caption><alternatives><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-i004"></graphic><table frame="hsides" rules="rows"><col width="11.37%" span="1"></col><col width="7.71%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><col width="8.09%" span="1"></col><thead><tr><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Scanner</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Margin</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Axial wall</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Line-angle</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Occlusal</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mesio distal</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Bucco lingual</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Box</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Non-box</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">E4D dentist</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">112.7 ± 82.4<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">102.6 ± 69.8<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">146.8 ± 97.6<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">95.9 ± 62.6<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">148.5 ± 97.5<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">91.7 ± 60.7<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">104.2 ± 59.5<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">50.8 ± 23.7<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.002<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Fastscan</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">45.1 ± 28.5</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">49.1 ± 35.6</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">44.7 ± 28.7</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">42.2 ± 26.2</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.361</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">57.4 ± 41.7<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">39.0 ± 19.9<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">39.3 ± 26.4</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">38.1 ± 23.1</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.892</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">iTero</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">54.5 ± 44.0</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">57.8 ± 31.8</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">46.1 ± 34.1</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">52.6 ± 44.6</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.136</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">70.5 ± 53.5<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">48.0 ± 27.2<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">31.0 ± 14.7</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">30.7 ± 12.5</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.964</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Trios</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">54.5 ± 38.4</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">47.4 ± 31.5</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">47.2 ± 36.8</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">48.9 ± 39.7</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.388</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">61.3 ± 46.3<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">40.0 ± 22.9<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">54.1 ± 34.6<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">13.1 ± 7.8<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Zfx Intrascan</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">93.1 ± 72.7</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">87.8 ± 62.4</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">84.6 ± 62.8</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">90.0 ± 59.9</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.781</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">93.1 ± 66.9</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">79.6 ± 59.4</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.141</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">104.3 ± 54.4<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">65.9 ± 25.6<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.016<sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Overall mean</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">72.0 ± 62.7</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">69.0 ± 53.7</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">73.9 ± 69.9</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">65.9 ± 53.2</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.116</td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">86.2 ± 72.4<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">59.7 ± 47.3<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">66.6 ± 51.5<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">39.7 ± 26.4<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="top" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td></tr></tbody></table></alternatives><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>Multiple comparison: a > b, <italic>P</italic> <.01: <sup>**</sup>, <italic>P</italic> < .05: <sup>*</sup></p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="T5" orientation="portrait" position="float"><label>Table 5</label><caption><title>Trueness according to the characteristics of IOS</title></caption><alternatives><graphic xlink:href="jap-8-354-i005"></graphic><table frame="hsides" rules="rows"><col width="7%" span="1"></col><col width="9%" span="1"></col><col width="9%" span="1"></col><col width="10%" span="1"></col><col width="9%" span="1"></col><col width="9%" span="1"></col><col width="10%" span="1"></col><col width="9%" span="1"></col><col width="9%" span="1"></col><col width="9%" span="1"></col><col width="10%" span="1"></col><thead><tr><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="2" colspan="1">Characte ristics</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="2">Image acquisition</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="2" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="2">Necessity of coating</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="2" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="3">Scanning techno</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="2" colspan="1"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr><tr><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Still image</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Video</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Coating</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">None</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Confocal microscopy</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Active triangulation</th><th valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Optical coherence tomography</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean Trueness</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">70.5 ± 62.7</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">69.5 ± 55.9</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.732</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">45.2 ± 29.8b</td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">76.3 ± 64.0<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">63.7 ± 51.5<sup>b</sup></td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">45.2 ± 29.8<sup>c</sup></td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">114.2 ± 80.7<sup>a</sup></td><td valign="middle" align="center" rowspan="1" colspan="1">.000<sup>**</sup></td></tr></tbody></table></alternatives><table-wrap-foot><fn><p>Multiple comparison: a > b > c, <italic>P</italic> < .01: <sup>**</sup>, <italic>P</italic> <.05: <sup>*</sup></p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></floats-group></pmc></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Pmc/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002F15 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002F15 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Pmc
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= PMC:5099127
|texte= Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:27826385" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EdenteV2
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |