Comparative analysis on efficiency and accuracy of parallel confocal microscopy and three-dimensional in motion video with triangulation technology-based intraoral scanner under influence of moisture and mouth opening - A crossover clinical trial.

Abstract

Aim: The intraoral scanners are digital devices used to digitise the oral tissues. The accuracy of the intraoral scanners has been studied under different environmental conditions, but there might be differences that occur in the actual oral environment, which is still in question. The aim of the study was to evaluate the accuracy and efficiency of Parallel Confocal Microscopy and 3D in motion video with triangulation technology-based intraoral scanners under the influence of moisture and mouth opening.

Settings and design: This was an Cross over clinical controlled study.

Materials and methods: The controlled in vivo study included healthy subjects who were in need of CBCT for the purpose of locating the position of unerupted third molars before going abroad for a job. The subjects were exposed to scans in the upper and lower jaws with two intraoral scanners based on 3D motion video technology with triangulation (Medit) and parallel confocal microscopy (Trios) under the influence of two oral conditions, which were moisture (presence and absence of moisture) and mouth opening (30 mm and 50 mm, respectively). A total of 96 scans were obtained and superimposed individually over the reference CBCT scans to find the deviations in the Geomagic Rapidform (version 2020, USA) software. The efficiency of the scanners was calculated by recording the time taken and the number of images obtained after each scan.

Statistical analysis used: The significance was calculated by using the independent and paired sample t test in SPSS software (IBM, version 23).

Results: Based on the surface analysis, the trueness of the intra-oral scanners had statistically significant differences when compared between 3D in motion video technology with Triangulation and Parallel Confocal Microscopy (P < 0.05) whereas no statistical significance was observed in precision. There was a significant difference observed in the efficiency of the intra-oral scanners (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: There is a significant difference in the accuracy and efficiency of the intraoral scanners under the influence of oral conditions, such as different moisture levels and mouth opening conditions. 3D in motion video technology with Triangulation showed better results with the least deviation than Parallel Confocal Microscopy.