IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Scanning Sequences on the Accuracy of Full-Arch Scan
Objectives: This study aims to test if different scanning sequences of the CEREC Omnicam SW 5.2 intra-oral scanner can influence the accuracy of a full-arch scan.
Methods: A fabricated cast poured in Type IV stone was duplicated from a maxillary typodont model and served as the study cast of this project. This cast was scanned in three different sequences with CEREC Omnicam SW 5.2 as testing scans. The scanning sequences were illustrated in Figure 1. This study cast was then scanned once more with inEos X5 inlab 20.0 as a reference scan. Eventually, all the scanned models were exported into STL (standard tessellation language) files, which were imported into a 3D inspection software program called Geomagic Control X 2020.1 afterwards for analyzing differences of the testing scans in comparison with the reference scan. Four points (two first maxillary molar disto-buccal cusps and two canine cusps) were selected as interested points with XYZ coordinates for six inter-tooth distances (D1-D6) as illustrated in Figure 1. Definition of trueness is the absolute inter-tooth distance difference between the reference and the testing scans. Definition of precision is standard deviation of the inter-tooth distances. The trueness and precision values of six inter-tooth distances were calculated and their differences among the three scanning sequences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA Tukey test.
Results: Statistical difference was noted in the accuracy of the full-arch scans from the three distinct scanning sequences with p-value of 0.0003 for trueness and 0.0138 for precision as shown in Table 1.
Conclusions: Different scanning approaches could significantly influence the accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam SW 5.2 intra-oral scanner. Triangulation technique and confocal technique showed statistically lower values of trueness and precision than modified triangulation technique.
Methods: A fabricated cast poured in Type IV stone was duplicated from a maxillary typodont model and served as the study cast of this project. This cast was scanned in three different sequences with CEREC Omnicam SW 5.2 as testing scans. The scanning sequences were illustrated in Figure 1. This study cast was then scanned once more with inEos X5 inlab 20.0 as a reference scan. Eventually, all the scanned models were exported into STL (standard tessellation language) files, which were imported into a 3D inspection software program called Geomagic Control X 2020.1 afterwards for analyzing differences of the testing scans in comparison with the reference scan. Four points (two first maxillary molar disto-buccal cusps and two canine cusps) were selected as interested points with XYZ coordinates for six inter-tooth distances (D1-D6) as illustrated in Figure 1. Definition of trueness is the absolute inter-tooth distance difference between the reference and the testing scans. Definition of precision is standard deviation of the inter-tooth distances. The trueness and precision values of six inter-tooth distances were calculated and their differences among the three scanning sequences were analyzed by one-way ANOVA Tukey test.
Results: Statistical difference was noted in the accuracy of the full-arch scans from the three distinct scanning sequences with p-value of 0.0003 for trueness and 0.0138 for precision as shown in Table 1.
Conclusions: Different scanning approaches could significantly influence the accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam SW 5.2 intra-oral scanner. Triangulation technique and confocal technique showed statistically lower values of trueness and precision than modified triangulation technique.
3569839_File000000.jpg