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
. 2023 Mar:130:104431.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104431. Epub 2023 Jan 20.

The effect of different tooth preparation finishing procedures and immediate dentin sealing on the scanning accuracy of different intraoral scanners

Affiliations
Free article

The effect of different tooth preparation finishing procedures and immediate dentin sealing on the scanning accuracy of different intraoral scanners

Marta Revilla-León et al. J Dent. 2023 Mar.
Free article

Abstract

Purpose: To measure the effect of different tooth preparation finishing procedures (super-coarse grit, fine grit, and air-particle abrasion) and immediate dentin sealing (IDS) on the scanning accuracy of 4 intraoral scanners (IOSs).

Material and methods: A tooth preparation for a full-coverage restoration was performed on an extracted mandibular molar using super-coarse diamond burs. Four groups were created depending on the tooth preparation finishing procedure: super-coarse grit (bur with a grit size of 150 µm) (SCG group), fine grit (bur with a grit size of 30 µm) (FG), air-particle abrasion with 27-µm aluminum oxide particles (APA group), and IDS (IDS group). Each group was divided into 5 subgroups according to the scanning system used to digitize the tooth preparation: laboratory scanner (control subgroup) (T710; Medit), Trios 4 (Trios subgroup), CS 3800 (CS subgroup), i700 wireless (i700 subgroup), and iTero Element 5D Plus (iTero subgroup) (n=20). For each subgroup, the control file was aligned with each experimental scan using the best-fit algorithm and an engineering program (Geomagic Control X). The discrepancy between the control and experimental files of each subgroup was computed by measuring the root mean square (RMS) error. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α=.05).

Results: Tooth preparation finishing procedures (P<.001) and the IOS assessed (P<.001) were significant predictors of the trueness and precision values obtained. The highest trueness and precision values were measured in the APA group, while the IDS group had the lowest trueness and precision. Additionally, the i700 subgroup obtained the highest trueness and precision values, while the CS and Trios subgroups had the lowest trueness and precision values.

Conclusions: The different tooth preparations finishing procedures tested influenced on the scanning accuracy of the 4 IOSs considered. The air-particle abrasion procedure obtained the best accuracy values. The trueness discrepancies measured among all the subgroups was 19µm and the precision discrepancies measured among all the subgroups was 4.69 µm.

Clinical significance: The tooth preparation finishing procedure used can reduce the intraoral scanning accuracy of any of the intraoral scanners tested. The air-particle abrasion finishing procedure might be recommended for maximizing the scanning accuracy of the IOSs tested.

Keywords: Accuracy; Digital impression; Intraoral scanner; Prosthodontics; tooth preparation surface finishing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Similar articles

Cited by

LinkOut - more resources