Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Dec 14:2020:8854204.
doi: 10.1155/2020/8854204. eCollection 2020.

Comparison of the Accuracy of 3D Images Obtained fromDifferent Types of Scanners: A Systematic Review

Dorota Kustrzycka  1 , Tim Marschang  2 , Marcin Mikulewicz  1 , Wojciech Grzebieluch  3
Affiliations

Comparison of the Accuracy of 3D Images Obtained fromDifferent Types of Scanners: A Systematic Review

Dorota Kustrzycka et al. J Healthc Eng. .

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the accuracy of the three-dimensional images among different scanners, scanning techniques, and substrates. Materials and methods. Electronic databases (PubMed and Elsevier) were searched until March 2020. The systematic search was performed to identify the most precise method of obtaining a 3D image of the dentition.

Results: Thirteen articles out of 221, considering the accuracy of 3D images, were selected. The main factors that are considered to have an influence on the precision are substrate type in the oral cavity, experience of the scanner's operator, direct vs. indirect scanning, and the reproducibility of the procedure.

Conclusion: Substrate type does have an impact on the overall accuracy of intraoral scans where dentin has the most and enamel the least accurately recorded dental structure. Experience of the operator has an influence on the accuracy, where more experienced operators and smaller scan sizes are made for more accurate scans. A conventional impression technique in a full-arch image provided the lowest deviation. The reproducibility of direct scanning was comparable to indirect scanning although a slight difference was noticeable (0.02 mm).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Zimmermann M., Mehl A., Mörmann W., Reich S. Intraoralescanner: eine aktuelle ubersicht. Kieferorthopädie die Zeitschrift für die Praxis. 2016;1/16:37–53.
    1. Rekow D. Digital Dentistry. Vol. 1. New Malden, UK: Quintessence Publishing; 2018. Broadening dentistry’s horizon and impact, in digital dentistry a comprehensive reference and preview of the future; pp. 3–7.
    1. Zaruba M., Ender A., Mehl A. New applications for three-dimensional follow-up and quality control using optical impression systems and OraCheck. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry. 2014;17(1):53–64. - PubMed
    1. Ender A., Attin T., Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2016;115(3):313–320. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sun L., Lee J.-S., Choo H.-H., Hwang H.-S., Lee K.-M. Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: a comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018;154(2):305–310. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.09.022. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources