The Journal of Dental Panacea

Online ISSN: 2348-8727

CODEN : JDP

The Journal of Dental Panacea (JDP) open access, peer-reviewed quarterly journal, Publish quarterly as Open Access (OA).  Vision of this journal  for better dissemination of knowledge, Journal will be publishing the article ‘Ahead of Print’ immediately on acceptance. In addition, the journal would allow free access (Open Access) to its contents, which is likely to attract more readers and citations to articles published in JDP. Manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with “Uniform requirements” of the The Journal of Dental Panacea as more...

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article statistics

Viewed: 287

PDF Downloaded: 624


Get Permission Pawar, Mahale, Khalikar, Rajguru, and Mahajan: Perks of intraoral scanner to prosthodontist: A review


Introduction

The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry was first introduced by Dr. Francois Duret in 1973.1 Intraoral scanners (IOS) have been boon to dentistry since 1980 as it has variety of applications such as impression making, use in prosthodontics and orthodontics appliances, retainers.2, 3 The use of Intraoral Scanners (IOS) has been increased since last few years replacing the conventional impression techniques. Intraoral scanning is advanced technology used along with additive manufacturing such as 3-D printing and subtractive technology such as CAD/CAM. Nowadays Intraoral Scanners (IOS) and CAD/CAM are very popular in almost every branch of dentistry like prosthodontics, orthodontics, conservative dentistry, maxillofacial surgery.4

The drawbacks of conventional impression techniques such as volumetric changes of impression materials and expansion of dental stone have been compensated by Intraoral Scanners (IOS). 5 Intraoral Scanners (IOS) and CAD/CAM provide better planning of treatment, case acceptance, communication with laboratories, less clinical time, storage requirements, and less treatment times. 6 So, the aim of current study was to:

  1. To know about intraoral scanners

  2. Benefits and limitations of Intraoral Scanners (IOS)

  3. Workflow of Intraoral Scanners (IOS).

  4. Various Commercial Intraoral Scanners (IOS) available in market.

Principle of Intraoral Scanners (IOS)

Digital intraoral scanner is divided into following parts: image capture, data processing, and onscreen results. The primary factor is the first factor i.e., image capture. The principle on which Intraoral Scanners (IOS) works are as follows:

  1. Confocal laser scanning: The LASER is directed toward the object through a narrow hole. The area which is out of focus is not recorded. The 3D image is created by merging different 2D confocal planes. Thus, it is also called as “point and stitch technique”

  2. Triangulation technique: It consists of three points: - the LASER, sensor and object surface. The information of the object is gained through Pythagorean theorem.

  3. Active wave-front sampling (3D-in-motion video recording): In this the 3D information of object surface is collected by single lens imaging system. A radio-opaque powder can be sprinkled before scanning for greater accuracy. 1

  4. Stereophotogrammetric technology: First of all, a stereo camera with an infrared flash detects the position of special flag abutments screwed into the implants. It is based upon registering the x, y and z coordinates of each implant and the distances between them. This information is then converted into a stereolithographic (STL) file. 7, 8, 9, 10 To add the soft-tissue information, the user must obtain another STL file by using an intraoral or extraoral scanner. 11 Stereophotogrammetry estimates all coordinates (x, y, and z) only through an algorithmic analysis of image. As this approach relies on passive light projection and software rather than active projection and hardware, the camera is relatively small, its handling is easier, and its production is cheaper. 6

  5. Reconstruction Technologies: The most difficult challenge of generating a 3D numerical model is the matching of POI taken under different angles. 2, 3, 12 Distances between different pictures can be calculated using an accelerometer incorporated in the camera, but a similarity calculation is more often used to determine the point of view of the image. 6

Benefits of intraoral scanners (IOS)

  1. Patient Comfort: Conventional impression techniques may cause discomfort to the patient such as severe gag reflex with impression material, position of impression tray. These all problems are compensated in Intraoral Scanners (IOS). Intra oral scanners have eliminated the need of conventional impression materials and trays which are often disliked by patient. It has seen in many surveys that patient prioritize the digital impressions over conventional impressions. 13

  2. Reduced Clinical and laboratory time: The chairside time has been reduced with the use of digital intra oral scanners as compared to conventional impression procedures. In digital impressions the need for pouring cast after impression is eliminated. As well as the there is no need to send the cast to the lab via courier as digital cast can be sent via STL file. 13

  3. Easier communication with patients: Digital impressions makes the communication easier with the patient. Also, it helps in marketing. Patient feels more involved in this treatment, ultimately having powerful impact on treatment. 13

Disadvantages of intraoral scanners (IOS)

  1. Learning curve: It is easier for new generation dentists to get adopted to Digital Intraoral Scanners (IOS). While Older dentists find it difficult to use Intraoral Scanners (IOS). In market there are variety of scanners available which would produce different results. With advent of technology there are new Intraoral Scanners (IOS) coming in market with newer technology. 13

  2. Expensive assembly and cost of treatment: The cost of digital Intraoral Scanners (IOS) is very much higher than conventional impression techniques. Also, the maintenance cost of digital Intraoral Scanners (IOS) is higher. So, patient cannot afford such higher cost for treatment. 13

  3. Inability to detect deeper areas to prepared teeth: Most commonly occurred problem with digital Intraoral Scanners (IOS) is inability to detect deeper areas such as finish line on prepared teeth. It occurs mainly in cases of subgingival margins. Subgingival margins are given mainly in anterior region where aesthetic is more concerned but Intraoral Scanners (IOS) will find it difficult to detect subgingival margins as light may not reach that area correctly. 13

Workflow

The workflow followed by omnicam scanner involves following phases (Figure 1, Figure 4)

  1. Administration: In this phase all the patient’s detail are entered such as Patient’s name, Date of birth, Clinician’s name.

  2. Acquisition: In this phase scanning of the prepared tooth and arch is done. Scanning of opposing arch as well as buccal scan is also done.

  3. Model: Model is prepared, trimmed and edited from scanning.

  4. Design: Design for the desired preparation is done according to Clinicians choice.

  5. Manufacturing: From above all data the prosthesis is manufactured by milling and sintering.

Chart 1

Step-by-step workflow of omnicam scanner

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/948b88fd-906b-4377-ab15-e42ae971f7c4image1.png

Figure 1

Intraoral Scanner - CEREC Omnicam

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/948b88fd-906b-4377-ab15-e42ae971f7c4image2.png
Figure 2

Intraoral Scanner - CEREC omnicam complete setup

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/948b88fd-906b-4377-ab15-e42ae971f7c4image3.png
Figure 3

Five step protocol followed by CEREC Software

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/948b88fd-906b-4377-ab15-e42ae971f7c4image4.png

Various Commercial Intraoral Scanners (IOS) Available in Market

iTero element - Align tech

It works on the principle confocal laser scanning. There is no need of powder for scanning. And it scans the arch by directly touching the tooth. The dimensions of Wand tip are 69.8 X 53.5 X 338.5 mm which is comparatively larger than other scanners. This intra oral scanner has reflective mirror into its wand thus it becomes easier for distal tooth scanning. 14, 15 The files of this scanner can be exported as STL file. The capture speed of this scanner is 6000 images/sec. 1

Lava COS – 3M

The imaging principle on which this scanner works is active wave-front sampling technology. In this the 3D information of object surface is collected by single lens imaging system. A radio-opaque powder can be sprinkled before scanning for greater accuracy 1. This scanner came into the market in year 2008. 1

Trios3 - 3Shape

This scanner was released in 2000. This manufacturer has intraoral as well as extraoral scanner. It works on the principle of optimal sectioning and confocal laser scanning. The capture speed of this scanner is 3000 images/sec. For scanning it directly touches the tooth. The dimensions of Wand tip are 20 X 21 X 276 mm. the wand weight is 340g and the screen size is 19’’. The files of this scanner can be exported as STL file or Dicom file. 1

True definition – 3M

The manufacturer of this scanner is 3M and it is the next version of Lava COS. The accuracy of this scanner is higher but sprinkling of powder is necessary. The imaging principle on which this scanner works is active wave-front sampling technology like its predecessor Lava COS. The dimensions of Wand tip are 14.2 X 16.2 X 254 mm. For scanning there is no need of direct contact with the tooth. It can be kept at the distance of 0-17 mm. It does not offer the color scan. 1

CEREC omnicam – Dentsply sirona

The imaging principle on which it works is Triangulation technique. It consists of three points the LASER, sensor and object surface. It is based upon continuous video streaming rather than stitching of static images. For scanning there is no need of direct contact with the tooth. It can be kept at the distance of 0-15 mm. The dimensions of Wand tip are 121 X 35 X 47. The wand weight is 313g. 1

CEREC primescan – Dentsply sirona

The scan procedure is based on dynamic depth scan up to 20mm. For scanning there is no need of direct contact with the tooth. There is no need of powder for scanning. The overall dimensions are 50.9 x 58.8 x 253 mm. Full arch scanning takes 2-3 minutes. It has three sleeves: Autoclavable steel sleeve with single-use window, Single-use sleeve, Steel sleeve with sapphire glass window. 16, 17, 18, 19

Table 1

Comparison of CEREC primescan and CEREC omnicam

Primescan

Omnicam

Noise

Less noisy

Makes more noise

Accuracy

Provides more local details

Less accurate than primescan

Trueness

Better

Lesser than primescan but more than clinically acceptable limit.

Technique sensitivity

Less

More

Scanner head size

15 X 15 (mm)

10 X 10 (mm)

Speed

Faster

Slower than primescan

Conclusion

Digital impressions have many benefits over conventional impressions. The chief advantage is that reduced patient discomfort. Many patient factors such as anxiety and gag reflex are reduced with the help of intra oral scanners. 20, 21, 2 Intraoral Scanners (IOS) improve the patient communication. There are variety of Intraoral Scanners (IOS) in market available with several advantages over each other. 13, 22, 23, 24, 25 A complete knowledge of the Intraoral Scanners (IOS) is required for clinician to have a successful clinical strategy for scanning of prepared teeth. 6

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

There is no conflict of interest

References

1 

H Hann-Min Hwang CW Chou YJ Chen CCJ Yao An Overview of Digital Intraoral Scanners: Past, Present and Future- From an Orthodontic PerspectiveTaiwanese J Orthod201830310.30036/TJO.201810_31(3).0003

2 

T Joda P Lenherr P Dedem I Kovaltschuk U Bragger NU Zitzmann Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trialClin Oral Implants Res2017281013182310.1111/clr.12982

3 

S Amin H P Weber M Finkelman K El Rafie Y Kudara P Papaspyridakos Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative studyClin Oral Implants Res201728111360710.1111/clr.12994

4 

V Daniel D Banyai G Zoltan J Borbely P Hermann T Hegedüs User Experience of Intraoral Scanners in Dentistry: Transnational Questionnaire StudyInt Dent J202310.1016/j.identj.2023.04.002

5 

B Giménez M Özcan F Martínez-Rus G Pradíes Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depthClin Implant Dent Relat Res201517Suppl 1546410.1111/cid.12124

6 

R Richert A Goujat L Venet G Viguie S Viennot P Robinson Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful ImpressionJ Healthc Eng20178427595.10.1155/2017/8427595

7 

KM Chochlidakis P Papaspyridakos A Geminiani CJ Chen IJ Feng C Ercoli Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysisJ Prosthet Dent2016116218490

8 

C R Means I E Flenniken Gagging-a problem in prosthetic dentistryJ Prosthet Dent197023661420

9 

P Rosted M Bundgaard J Fiske A M Pedersen The use of acupuncture in controlling the gag reflex in patients requiring an upper alginate impression: an auditBr Dent J2006201117215

10 

JD Muir EJ Calvert Vomiting during the taking of dental impressions. Two case reports of the use of psychological techniquesBr Dent J1988165413941

11 

G Pradíes A Ferreiroa M Özcan B Giménez F Martínez-Rus Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implantsJ Am Dent Assoc201414543384410.14219/jada.2013.45

12 

A Marghalani H P Weber M Finkelman Y Kudara K El Rafie P Papaspyridakos Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracyJ Prosthet Dent20181194574910.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.002

13 

F Mangano A Gandolfi G Luongo S Logozzo Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literatureBMC Oral Health201717114910.1186/s12903-017-0442-x

14 

GJ Christensen Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?J Am Dent Assoc20081396761310.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258

15 

E Yuzbasioglu H Kurt R Turunc H Bilir Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomesBMC Oral Health2014141010.1186/1472-6831-14-10

16 

M Imburgia S Logozzo U Hauschild G Veronesi C Mangano F G Mangano Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro studyBMC Oral Health20171719210.1186/s12903-017-0383-4

17 

ML Aragón LF Pontes LM Bichara C Flores-Mir D Normando Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic reviewEur J Orthod201638442934

18 

C Goracci L Franchi A Vichi M Ferrari Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidenceEur J Orthod20163844228

19 

P Ahlholm K Sipilä P Vallittu M Jakonen U Kotiranta Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A ReviewJ Prosthodont2016271354110.1111/jopr.12527

20 

R Nedelcu P Olsson I Nystrom J Ryden A Thor Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis methodJ Dent201869110810.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006

21 

T Joda U Bragger Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: a prospective clinical crossover trialInt J Oral Maxillofac Implants2015305104753

22 

C B Martin E V Chalmers G T Mcintyre H Cochrane P A Mossey Orthodontic scanners: what's available?J Orthod201542213643

23 

T Joda U Brägger Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trialClin Oral Implants Res201627121859

24 

M A Atieh A V Ritter C C Ko I Duqum Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference applianceJ Prosthet Dent20171183400510.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.022

25 

C Goracci L Franchi A Vichi M Ferrari Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for fullarch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidenceEur J Orthod2016384422810.1093/ejo/cjv077



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to remix, and build upon the work, the licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Article type

Review Article


Article page

104-108


Authors Details

Prasanna Pawar*, Kishor Mahale, Smita Khalikar, Vilas Rajguru, Sonali Mahajan


Article History

Received : 08-08-2023

Accepted : 26-08-2023


Article Metrics


View Article As

 


Downlaod Files