Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three-dimensional surface analysis

Abstract Background This in vivo study evaluated the difference of two well-known intraoral scanners used in dentistry, namely iTero (Align Technology) and TRIOS (3Shape). Methods Thirty-two participants underwent intraoral scans with TRIOS and iTero scanners, as well as conventional alginate impres...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kyung-Min Lee (Author)
Format: Book
Published: SpringerOpen, 2018-02-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_e6efd9bd677245fd9a8b5b29fa9618a8
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Kyung-Min Lee  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three-dimensional surface analysis 
260 |b SpringerOpen,   |c 2018-02-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.1186/s40510-018-0205-5 
500 |a 2196-1042 
520 |a Abstract Background This in vivo study evaluated the difference of two well-known intraoral scanners used in dentistry, namely iTero (Align Technology) and TRIOS (3Shape). Methods Thirty-two participants underwent intraoral scans with TRIOS and iTero scanners, as well as conventional alginate impressions. The scans obtained with the two intraoral scanners were compared with each other and were also compared with the corresponding model scans by means of three-dimensional surface analysis. The average differences between the two intraoral scans on the surfaces were evaluated by color-mapping. The average differences in the three-dimensional direction between each intraoral scans and its corresponding model scan were calculated at all points on the surfaces. Results The average differences between the two intraoral scanners were 0.057 mm at the maxilla and 0.069 mm at the mandible. Color histograms showed that local deviations between the two scanners occurred in the posterior area. As for difference in the three-dimensional direction, there was no statistically significant difference between two scanners. Conclusions Although there were some deviations in visible inspection, there was no statistical significance between the two intraoral scanners. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Intraoral scan 
690 |a Three-dimensional surface analysis 
690 |a Digital impression 
690 |a Dentistry 
690 |a RK1-715 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Progress in Orthodontics, Vol 19, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2018) 
787 0 |n http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40510-018-0205-5 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2196-1042 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/e6efd9bd677245fd9a8b5b29fa9618a8  |z Connect to this object online.