Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures

Abdullah Alehaideb; Wei-Shao Lin; John A Levon; Tien-Min G Chu; Chao-Chieh Yang

doi:10.1111/jopr.13788

Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures

J Prosthodont. 2023 Nov 4. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13788. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Abdullah Alehaideb¹, Wei-Shao Lin¹, John A Levon¹, Tien-Min G Chu², Chao-Chieh Yang¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Prosthodontics, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
² Department of Biomedical Sciences and Comprehensive Care, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

PMID: 37924229
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13788

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of four digital scanning methods in duplicating a complete denture.

Material and methods: Four scanning methods were used: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Straumann desktop scanner (DS), Trios intraoral scanner (TIO), and Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (VVIO). Each method was used to duplicate all the surfaces of a printed complete denture. The denture was scanned 10 times in each group. The trueness (in root mean square, RMS) and precision (in standard deviation, SD) were calculated by comparing the combined dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to test statistical differences (α = 0.05).

Results: For the scanning accuracy of the whole denture, CBCT showed the highest RMS (0.249 ± 0.020 mm) and lowest trueness than DS (0.124 ± 0.014 mm p < 0.001), TIO (0.131 ± 0.006 mm p < 0.001), and VVIO (0.227 ± 0.020 mm p = 0.017), while DS and TIO showed smaller RMS than VVIO (p < 0.001). For the trueness of dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces, CBCT also showed the highest mean RMS and lowest trueness among all groups (p < 0.001). DS and TIO had smaller mean RMS and higher trueness among all groups in all surfaces (p < 0.001, except VVIO in intaglio surface, p > 0.05). TIO had significantly lower within-group variability of RMS and highest precision compared to DS (p = 0.013), CBCT (p = 0.001), and VVIO (p < 0.001) in the combined surface. For dentition and denture extension surfaces, TIO showed similar within-group variability of RMS with the DS group (p > 0.05) and lower than CBCT and VVIO (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner can duplicate dentures in higher trueness than CBCT and the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner. The Trios 4 intraoral scanner was more precise in the combined surfaces than other scanning methods, while the 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner were more precise in the denture extension surface.

Keywords: denture duplication; digital dentistry; intraoral scan; precision; trueness.