Comparison of the measurement error of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral and one extra-oral dental scanners of post and core preparations

Lucien Dupagne; Bernardin Mawussi; Laurent Tapie; Nicolas Lebon

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13235

Comparison of the measurement error of optical impressions obtained with four intraoral and one extra-oral dental scanners of post and core preparations

Heliyon. 2023 Jan 25;9(2):e13235. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13235. eCollection 2023 Feb.

Authors

Lucien Dupagne^{1

2}, Bernardin Mawussi^{3

4}, Laurent Tapie^{5

4}, Nicolas Lebon^{3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Prosthodontic Department, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Université Paris Cité, Montrouge, France.
² Hopital Louis Mourier, Colombes, France.
³ Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Bobigny, France.
⁴ Université Paris Cité, Montrouge, France.
⁵ EPF Ecole d'ingénieurs, Unité de Recherche Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces, Cachan, France.

Abstract

Statement of problem: Innovations in intraoral scanner (IOS) technology are opening up ever more indications for computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM). The manufacturers claim that the latest generations of scanners allow the digitizing of root canal preparations. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the quality of the optical impressions made for this type of treatment.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the measurement error of 4 IOSs and a laboratory scanner used for the digitizing of root canal preparations and to highlight the effect of the presence or absence of adjacent teeth on the quality of the digital model.

Material and methods: Two models: one presenting adjacent teeth, one without adjacent teeth, both presenting a 10 mm deep nominal conical pit mimicking a root canal preparation were fabricated. Each model was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (E3) and 4 intraoral scanners (Primescan, Omnicam, TRIOS 4, and Medit i700). The digital models were then exported as standard tessellation language (STL) files and analyzed to evaluate the mean measurement error of the digitizing of the root preparation at three different depths: 0-3 mm, 3-6 mm, and 6-9 mm. Significant differences were assessed with a 1-way ANOVA test and the pairwise comparison between scanners was done by Tukey's multiple comparison test.

Results: Statistical differences were found between scanners (P < 0.05). The mean measurement error ranged from 9.8 ± 0.5 μm with the Medit i700 to 28.2 ± 10 μm with the E3. The E3 and Omnicam scanners were in some cases incapable of digitizing the conical preparation in its entirety. The group Primescan, TRIOS 4, and Medit i700 showed minimally significant differences. The presence of adjacent teeth had a negative effect on the model quality for some scanners, mainly because of the obstruction of the IOS's head.

Conclusions: Significant differences were found among the dental scanners used for digitizing root canal preparations. Optical impressions with modern intraoral scanners seem to be an adapted method of registration of root canal preparation for post-and-copings of post-and-cores fabrication.

Keywords: CAD-CAM; CAD-CAM, Computer aided design - Computer aided manufacturing; IOS, intraoral scanner; Intraoral scanner; Root canal preparation.