ISSN : 0376-4672
Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of contamination of the scan-mirror on the accuracy of obtained scan data by using two type of intra-oral scanner. Materials & methods: After printing the Crown & inlay specimens according to the ISO standard, the data values of the specimens were calculated using a model scanner and two intra-oral scanners. Experimental groups were classified into three groups according to cleanliness of scan-mirror. Each group performed 10 repeated scans. Data analysis was performed with statistical software (SPSS 25, IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA) to check the normality of data sets andA NOVA & Bonferroni test was performed for multiple comparisons betwen groups. Results: The d1(top diameter of cylinder), d2(bottom diameter of cylinder), h(cylinder height) values of the crown specimens and d1(top diameter of cavity), d2(bottom diameter of cavity), h(cavity height) of the inlay specimens compared with the reference data using two intra-oral scanners were similar for each group. Discussion: In the scanning process, it was observed on the screen that a data value that deviated from the normal range was inputted in the group with higher level of contamination, but they were removed through the software’s own filtering and post-processing, and it was found that there was no significant effect on the result values. Conclusion: Under the conditions of this study, as the degree of contamination of the scan-mirror surface increased, an inaccurate capture screen appeared, but it did not significantly affect the accuracy and percision of the scan data.
1. Revilla-León M, Subramanian SG, Krishnamurthy VR, Özcan M. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. J Prosthet Dent 2020;29(2):107-106.
2. Wong KY, Esguerra RJ, Chia VAP, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Static Interocclusal Registration by Three Intraoral Scanner Systems. J Prosthet Dent 2018;27(2):120-119.
3. Lim J-H, Park J-M, Kim M, Heo S-J, Myung J-Y. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(2):225-232.
4. Chiu A, Chen YW, Hayashi J, Sadr A. Accuracy of CAD/CAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters. Sensors (Switzerland). 2020;20(4).
5. Mennito AS, Ludlow ME, Renne WG, Evans ZP, Lauer AW, Patel RB. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018;30(2):113-112.
6. Shearer BM, Cooke SB, Halenar LB, et al. Evaluating causes of error in landmark-based data collection using scanners. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):1-37.
7. Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117(1):93-101.
8. Oh KC, Park J-M, Moon HS. Effects of Scanning Strategy and Scanner Type on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: A New Approach for Assessing the Accuracy of Scanned Data. J Prosthodont 2020:0-5.
9. Vág J, Nagy Z, Simon B, et al. A novel method for complex three-dimensional evaluation of intraoral scanner accuracy. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22(3):239-238.
10. Camardella LT, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78(3):211-210.
11. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22(1):11-10.
12. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodont 2020;64(2):109-113.
13. Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(12):0--1.
