This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Nikolaos Gavounelis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
The purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of scanning strategy on trueness and precision of the impression acquired from an intraoral scanner.
Materials and methods
Fifteen complete-arch, mandibular, post orthodontic treatment casts were scanned with a laboratory scanner (Identica SE 3D, Medit) as the gold standard, and with an intraoral scanner (i500 Medit) following 3 different paths of the scanning head over the arch (scanning strategies A, B, C). The hand scans were performed twice by one examiner and repeated by a second examiner, resulting in 180 triangular mesh surfaces (digital casts). The meshes were superimposed on the gold standards using the Viewbox 4 software. The closest distances between the meshes were computed and trueness and precision were evaluated using a General Linear Model.
Results
Scanning strategy A was statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) and differed from B and C, which were similar. A positive correlation was found among examiner and strategy.
Conclusions
The accuracy of complete-arch impressions is affected by the scanning strategy. The manufacturer’s recommended strategy was statistically significantly better (p < 0.05). Average accuracy below 50 µm, which is clinically acceptable in most orthodontic procedures, was achieved with all the examined scanning strategies.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
No competing interests reported.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 17 Sep, 2021
No community comments so far
Editor invited
On 23 Sep, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 23 Sep, 2021
First submitted
On 16 Sep, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Dentistry
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at Scientific Reports. A preprint is a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research Article
Nikolaos Gavounelis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 1
Posted 17 Sep, 2021
No community comments so far
Editor invited
On 23 Sep, 2021
Submission checks complete
On 23 Sep, 2021
First submitted
On 16 Sep, 2021
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Dentistry
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
The purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of scanning strategy on trueness and precision of the impression acquired from an intraoral scanner.
Materials and methods
Fifteen complete-arch, mandibular, post orthodontic treatment casts were scanned with a laboratory scanner (Identica SE 3D, Medit) as the gold standard, and with an intraoral scanner (i500 Medit) following 3 different paths of the scanning head over the arch (scanning strategies A, B, C). The hand scans were performed twice by one examiner and repeated by a second examiner, resulting in 180 triangular mesh surfaces (digital casts). The meshes were superimposed on the gold standards using the Viewbox 4 software. The closest distances between the meshes were computed and trueness and precision were evaluated using a General Linear Model.
Results
Scanning strategy A was statistically significantly better (p < 0.05) and differed from B and C, which were similar. A positive correlation was found among examiner and strategy.
Conclusions
The accuracy of complete-arch impressions is affected by the scanning strategy. The manufacturer’s recommended strategy was statistically significantly better (p < 0.05). Average accuracy below 50 µm, which is clinically acceptable in most orthodontic procedures, was achieved with all the examined scanning strategies.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
No competing interests reported.
Loading...