Influence of rescanning mesh holes and stitching procedures on the complete-arch scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vitro study

Abstract

[EN] Purpose: To measure the impact of different scanning patches on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner (IOS).

Material and methods: A typodont was digitized using an industrial optical scanner (GOM Atos Q 3D 12 M) to obtain a reference mesh. The typodont was scanned using an IOS (TRIOS 3). Three groups were generated based on the rescan areas created: no mesh holes (G0 group), 3 mesh holes distributed on the digital scan (G1 group), and 3 mesh holes located on the left quadrant of the digital scan (G2 group). In the G0 group, a digital scan was completed following the manufacturer's scanning protocol. In the G1 group, a digital scan was obtained following the same protocol as G0 group. Three 12-mm diameter holes were created in the occlusal surfaces of the left second first molar, incisal edges of the central incisors, and right first molar of the digital scan using the IOS software. In the G2 group, a digital scan was obtained following the same protocol as G0 group. Three 12mm diameter holes in the digital scan were created in the occlusal surface of the left first molar and left second and first premolars using the IOS software program. The discrepancy between the control and the experimental digital scans was measured using the root mean square calculation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test demonstrated that data were normally distributed. One-way ANOVA followed by post hoc multiple comparison Bonferroni test were used to analyze the data (alpha = .05).

Results: Trueness values ranged from 15 to 26 mu m and the precision ranged from 21 to 150 mu m. Significant differences in trueness mean values were found among the groups tested (F(2, 42) = 6.622, P = .003); the Bonferroni test indicated significant mean differences between the G0 and G2 groups (mean difference=0.11, SE=0.003, and P = .002). For precision evaluation, significant precision differences were found between the groups tested (F(2, 39)=9.479, P < .001); the Bonferroni test revealed significant precision differences between G0 and G2 groups (mean difference=-0.12, SE=0.030, and P = .001).

Conclusions: Rescanning mesh holes and stitching procedures decreased the trueness and precision of the IOS tested; furthermore, the number and dimensions of mesh holes rescanned represented an important factor that influenced the scanning accuracy of IOS tested.

Clinical Significance: It is a fundamental procedure obtaining intraoral digital scans without leaving mesh holes, so the rescanning techniques are minimized and, therefore, the scanning accuracy of the intraoral scanner tested is maximized.