CAD/CAM Technology has made tremendous advancements in Dentistry in the last 30 years. As a Dental Technician, I have seen the introduction various devices during that time that were lacking when faced with every day chairside application in creating restorations. However, the accuracy of IOS has been studied in recent papers and my clients have provided positive feedback on the latest technology. This gradually persuaded me to try and ascertain for myself the accuracy of the latest Intraoral Scanners.
2. IMPRESSION VS STONE COMPARISON TEST
[Fig. 1] Comparison of GA and GB
We tested several impression scans whether it is reliable to use without stone models. 20 impression scans (Group A, GA) were performed and 20 gypsum models (Group B, GB) were fabricated with the same impressions for scanning. Evaluation of two groups was conducted with cross-comparison. Fig. 1 shows a sectional view of overlapped STLs with same impression. Significant difference was found especially around margin. The maximum difference was over 100 microns at the margin area. [Table. 1] I think the reasons are the light of scanner couldn’t reach impression bottom of long anterior teeth, long premolar teeth and severe undercut area. This will cause the software to automatically fill the area that it couldn’t scan, the differences may have been induced by these reasons. As the result, impression scan is not yet practical for dental prosthesis.
[Table. 1] Average differences GA and GB
3. RECENT PAPERS PROVING THE ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF INTRAORAL SCANNERS
a. “…In scans of complete dental arch and isolated prepared teeth, the true definition IOS had the greatest accuracy…”
– Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch (Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry)
b. “…Intraoral scanners can be used as a replacement for conventional impressions when restoring up to ten units without extended edentulous spans…”
– Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impression: A novel in vivo analysis method (Journal of Dentistry)
c. “…Error range of intraoral scanners was considerably small and it should be covered with cement space. The results of this study indicated that an optical impression method with an intraoral scanner could be to the implant therapy for multiple teeth missing…”
– Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners (Journal of Prosthodontic Research)
d. “…The occlusal device was tested for fit, occlusion, and patient-friendly handling. As only minor occlusal corrections were required, the fully digital procedure described is suitable for the fabrication of occlusal devices…”
– Fully digital fabrication of an occlusal device using an intraoral scanner and 3D printing: A dental technique (The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry)
4. INTRODUCTION OF MEDIT I500 INTRAORAL SCANNER
Reliability of IOS has been verified in the recent papers. So, I will now present our intraoral scanner, Medit i500. Medit is a company known for its digital dentistry, 3D scanning products and dental software. They released Medit i500 (Mi5) intraoral scanner in the year of 2018. The articles I mentioned above tend to agree that one company’s IOS (IOS3) was somewhat better compared to other products from different companies But the Mi5 was proven even better from study conducted by College of Dentistry, Yonsei University, South Korea. This study compares the accuracy and precision of Mi5 and IOS3.
[Fig. 2] Mi5 and IOS3
Results (Table. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4)
a. Trueness: There was a statistically significant difference in the single tooth model and the full arch model, and the trueness value of the Mi5 group was lower, showing better trueness. (P<.05)
b. Precision: There was a statistically significant difference in the single tooth and quadrant arch models, and the Mi5 group showed better reproducibility due to the lower precision value. (P<.05)
[Table. 2] Comparison of Trueness and Precision
Trueness: Measurement of average differences between scan data and reference data
Precision: Measurement of average differences between each scan data from the same scanner
[Fig. 3] Trueness of Mi5 and IOS3
As shown above, Medit i500 is one of the best IOS product in the market place and also has user-friendly software. Medit i500 is unrivaled in terms of cost-effectiveness in addition to quality. If you’ve been hesitating to buy it due to the expensive price of IOS, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to buy it this time. More details can be found on our website https://creodental.com/product/medit-i500/. The promo is currently on. It’s time-limited.
[Fig. 4] Precision of Mi5 and IOS3
With Medit i500, CreoDent also provides 3D printed Model using so-called “Carbon technology”. We supply separate die models and Implant models. Implant models will be supplied with soft tissue and Triloc analog that we developed. Carbon 3D printer is the best one in the dentistry market. Digital Light Synthesis™ technology, enabled by Carbon’s proprietary CLIP™ process, is a breakthrough technology that uses digital light projection, oxygen-permeable optics, and programmable liquid resins to produce parts with excellent mechanical properties, resolution, and surface finish.
[Fig. 5] 3D Printed Model, Triloc Analog and Carbon 3D printer
If you send us intraoral scan files or even Encode system, we can provide 3D printed models. You can rely on our quality and expertise. For more details, please visit https://creodental.com/ and https://creomc.com/.