Accuracy of intraoral scanners in neonates cleft anatomy.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.3290/j.ijcd.b5886430

Raphael Ferrari, Mutlu Özcan, Daniel Wiedemeier, Harald Essig

{"title":"Accuracy of intraoral scanners in neonates cleft anatomy.","authors":"Raphael Ferrari, Mutlu Özcan, Daniel Wiedemeier, Harald Essig","doi":"10.3290/j.ijcd.b5886430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This study investigated the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) based on different image acquisition technologies in the field of presurgical-orthopedictreatment (PSOT) in neonates with cleft.Methods: Dental cast models of clinical situations representing unilateral cleft-lip-palate(UCLP), bilateral cleft-lippalate( BCLP) and cleft-palate(CP) with reference PEEK-scanbodies (Cares RC Mono-Scankörper, Straumann, Switzerland) were scanned utilizing four IOS systems: CareStream-CS3600®(CS), Medit-i500®(MD), Cerec-Omnicam®(SO), 3Shape-Trios-3®(TS). One calibrated operator made 5 scans from each model using each IOS (N=60). Reference digital impressions were obtained by an industrialgrade laboratory scanner (Sirona inEos-X5) and superimposed using best fit algorithm. The divergence measure was extracted and the scanners were compared in view of their accuracy using generalized least squares statistical models that account for variance heterogeneity. Additionally, comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed using the reverse engineering software (Geomagic-ControlX) in order to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the reference scan in different anatomic regions of interest: alveolar-crest(AC), cleft(CL), palate(PL), vestibulum(VS), premaxilla(PM).Results: The four IOS showed relevant and significant differences in estimated trueness (P<0.001) and precision (P=0.009). Among all anatomical models and analysed area of interest TS had the best accuracy (trueness: -1.57μm; precision: 9.41μm), followed by MD (trueness: - 20.63μm; precision: 29.18μm), CS (trueness: -40.43μm; precision: 16.52μm) and SO (trueness: 81.27μm; precision: 40.32μm).Conclusions: Impression of the maxilla in cleft lip and palate patients is challenging for the operator. Relevant and significant differences in trueness and precision were found between the four IOS. TS showed the best accuracy and was least influenced IOS under different anatomical situations.","PeriodicalId":48666,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Computerized Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ijcd.b5886430","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This study investigated the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) based on different image acquisition technologies in the field of presurgical-orthopedictreatment (PSOT) in neonates with cleft.

Methods: Dental cast models of clinical situations representing unilateral cleft-lip-palate(UCLP), bilateral cleft-lippalate( BCLP) and cleft-palate(CP) with reference PEEK-scanbodies (Cares RC Mono-Scankörper, Straumann, Switzerland) were scanned utilizing four IOS systems: CareStream-CS3600®(CS), Medit-i500®(MD), Cerec-Omnicam®(SO), 3Shape-Trios-3®(TS). One calibrated operator made 5 scans from each model using each IOS (N=60). Reference digital impressions were obtained by an industrialgrade laboratory scanner (Sirona inEos-X5) and superimposed using best fit algorithm. The divergence measure was extracted and the scanners were compared in view of their accuracy using generalized least squares statistical models that account for variance heterogeneity. Additionally, comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed using the reverse engineering software (Geomagic-ControlX) in order to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the reference scan in different anatomic regions of interest: alveolar-crest(AC), cleft(CL), palate(PL), vestibulum(VS), premaxilla(PM).

Results: The four IOS showed relevant and significant differences in estimated trueness (P<0.001) and precision (P=0.009). Among all anatomical models and analysed area of interest TS had the best accuracy (trueness: -1.57μm; precision: 9.41μm), followed by MD (trueness: - 20.63μm; precision: 29.18μm), CS (trueness: -40.43μm; precision: 16.52μm) and SO (trueness: 81.27μm; precision: 40.32μm).

Conclusions: Impression of the maxilla in cleft lip and palate patients is challenging for the operator. Relevant and significant differences in trueness and precision were found between the four IOS. TS showed the best accuracy and was least influenced IOS under different anatomical situations.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

International Journal of Computerized Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (miscellaneous)

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： This journal explores the myriad innovations in the emerging field of computerized dentistry and how to integrate them into clinical practice. The bulk of the journal is devoted to the science of computer-assisted dentistry, with research articles and clinical reports on all aspects of computer-based diagnostic and therapeutic applications, with special emphasis placed on CAD/CAM and image-processing systems. Articles also address the use of computer-based communication to support patient care, assess the quality of care, and enhance clinical decision making. The journal is presented in a bilingual format, with each issue offering three types of articles: science-based, application-based, and national society reports.