Journals / Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3s

Direct Digitalization Devices in Today’s Dental Practice: Intra Oral Scanners

Pages
136–142
Publication Date
2021-05-09
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The aim of this review is to evaluate the scanning technologies of intraoral scanners, their advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice, scanning strategies, accuracy of scanning processes, and software protocols.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Rapidly developing technologies and new changes in modern dentistry have led to more effective solutions to be used in our clinical practice.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The popularity of intraoral scanners has increased rapidly since the 1980s.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The aim of this review is to evaluate the scanning technologies of intraoral scanners, their advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice, scanning strategies, accuracy of scanning processes, and software protocols.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:CAD-CAM · Digital Workflow · Digital

Abstract

Rapidly developing technologies and new changes in modern dentistry have led to more effective solutions to be used in our clinical practice. The digital workflow includes some steps, such as data acquisition, digitalization, designing, and subsequently manufacturing by using digital devices. In this process, acquiring the images from patients mouth, which is named computer-aided impression (CAI), is the first step of the digital workflow and named as digitalization. The need to skip many time-consuming intermediate steps and reduce the possibility of fabrication errors has made the digital workflow a popular choice for dentists and dental technicians. The popularity of intraoral scanners has increased rapidly since the 1980s. With the development of camera systems and software engineering, many companies have presented many different IOS devices, which are based on different software systems. This situation causes dentists to get confused due to the formation of a very large data cluster. IOS devices are used to capture the digital data and they are an effective alternative to conventional impressions in many ways, such as increased patient comfort, time efficiency, hygiene, predictability, and precise results. Clinicians should have enough technical information about the IOS they use to obtain optimal results in fabricated restorations. The aim of this review is to evaluate the scanning technologies of intraoral scanners, their advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice, scanning strategies, accuracy of scanning processes, and software protocols.

🔖

Cite This Article

URAL, Ç., KALELİ, N. (2021). Direct Digitalization Devices in Today’s Dental Practice: Intra Oral Scanners. Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 3s, 136–142. https://ajindex.com/articles/677936

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Burgner, J., Simpson, A., Fitzpatrick, J., Lathrop, R., Herrell, S., Miga, M., Webster Iii, R., 2013. A study on the theoretical and practical accuracy of conoscopic holography‐based surface measurements: toward image registration in minimally invasive surgery. Int. J. Med. Robot. 9, 190-203.
  2. Chiu, A., Chen, Y.W., Hayashi, J., Sadr, A., 2020. Accuracy of CAD/CAM digital impressions with different intraoral scanner parameters. Sensors. 20, 1157. Da Costa, J., Pelogia, F., Hagedorn, B., Ferracane, J., 2010. Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper. Dent. 35, 324-329.
  3. Ender, A., Mehl, A., 2013. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J. Prosthet. Dent. 109, 121-128.
  4. Ender, A., Mehl, A., 2015. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence. Int. 46, 9-17.
  5. Flügge, T., Van Der Meer, W.J., Gonzalez, B.G., Vach, K., Wismeijer, D., Wang, P., 2018. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 29, 374-392.
  6. Geng, J., 2011. Structured-light 3D surface imaging: a tutorial. Adv. Opt. Photon. 3, 128-160.
  7. Giachetti, L., Sarti, C., Cinelli, F., Russo, D.S., 2020. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies. Int. J. Prosthodont. 33, 192-201. Giménez, B., Özcan, M., Martínez‐Rus, F., Pradíes, G., 2015. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 17, e54-e64. Gjelvold, B., Chrcanovic, B.R., Korduner, E.K., Collin‐Bagewitz, I., Kisch, J., 2016. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J. Prosthodont. 25, 282-287.
  8. Goracci, C., Franchi, L., Vichi, A., Ferrari, M., 2016. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur. J. Orthod. 38, 422-428.
  9. Grünheid, T., Mccarthy, S.D., Larson, B.E., 2014. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 146, 673-682.
  10. Güth, J.F., Runkel, C., Beuer, F., Stimmelmayr, M.