Abstract
ObjectivesThis study evaluated the importance of defining the reference and the test object during 3D surface comparisons to assess the trueness of an intraoral scanner. Materials and methodsA maxillary complete-arch cast with interdental spaces was digitized with a high-resolution scanner to obtain the ground truth dataset [GT]. Fifteen intraoral scanning datasets [IOS] were obtained with an intraoral scanner. The trueness of the [IOS] datasets were evaluated by two different comparison procedures using a 3D analysis software: In the first comparison [REF-GT], the [GT] dataset was set as reference object and the [IOS] dataset was defined as test object. In the second comparison [REF-IOS], the [IOS] dataset were set as reference object and the [GT] dataset was defined as test object. The mean trueness of both comparisons was calculated with absolute mean deviation, (90–10)/2 percentile, and root-mean-squared (RMS) error method. Statistical significance was analyzed using the t-test (α=0.05). ResultsThe mean trueness values of [REF-GT] were 31.4(±6.1) µm for (90–10)/2 percentile, 77.0(±5.3) µm for absolute mean deviation, and 203.1(±4.8) µm for RMS error method. [REF-IOS] revealed 23.9(±4.8) µm, 28.3(±6.3) µm, and 39.6(±9.5) µm, respectively. The results differed significantly. ConclusionThe datasets obtained from the intraoral scanner captured more adequately interproximal spaces in comparison to the [GT] dataset. Therefore, the [GT] dataset defined as reference object in the analysis software for 3D comparisons revealed misleading results. Clinical significanceThe selection of the reference object and of the areas to be compared have to be defined carefully regarding complete arch scanning accuracy analysis.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call