Fabian Leopold Alois Strohmayr

Fifth year, group 15

INTRAORAL SCANNER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF

CURRENT LITERATURE

Master’s thesis

Thesis supervisor:
Lect. Eglė Ivanauskienė

Kaunas, 2019
 Annex No. 3

LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

MEDICAL ACADEMY
FACULTY OF ODONTOLOGY
PROSTHODONTICS CLINIC

INTRAORAL SCANNER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CURRENT LITERATURE

The thesis was done

by student ................................................ Supervisor ...............................................
(signature) (signature)

..................................................... .............................................................................
(name surname, year, group) (degree, name surname)

.............................. 20…. .............................. 20….

(day/month) (day/month)
 Annex No. 8
Kaunas 2019

EVALUATION TABLE OF THE MASTER’S THESIS

OF THE TYPE OF SYSTEMIC REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

Evaluation: ....................................................................................................................................

Reviewer: ...................................................................................................................................
(scientific degree, name and surname)
Reviewing date: ...........................................

No. Compliance with MT

MT parts MT evaluation aspects requirements and
evaluation
Yes Partially No
Is summary informative and in compliance withthe
1 0.3 0.1 0
Summary thesis content and requirements?
(0.5 point) Are keywords in compliance with the thesis essence?
2 0.2 0.1 0
Are the novelty, relevance and significance of the work
3 0.4 0.2 0
Introduc- justified in the introduction of the thesis?
tion, aim and Are the problem, hypothesis, aim and tasks formed
4 0.4 0.2 0
tasks (1 point) clearly and properly?
5 Are the aim and tasks interrelated? 0.2 0.1 0
6 Is the protocol of systemic review present? 0.6 0.3 0
Were the eligibility criteria of articles for the selected
7 protocol determined (e.g., year, language, publication 0.4 0.2 0
condition, etc.)
Selection Are all the information sources (databases with dates of
8 criteria of the coverage, contact with study authorsto identify 0.2 0.1 0
studies, search additional studies) described and is the last search day
methods and indicated?
strategy Is the electronic search strategy described in such a
(3.4 points) way that it could be repeated (year of search, the
9 lastsearchday; keywords and their combinations; 0.4 0.1 0
number of found and selected articles according to the
combinations of keywords)?
10 Is the selection process of studies (screening,
eligibility, included in systemic review or, if 0.4 0.2 0
applicable, included in the meta-analysis) described?
 Is the data extraction method from the articles (types of
11 investigations, participants,interventions, analysed 0.4 0.2 0
factors, indexes) described?
Are all the variables (for which data were sought and
12 any assumptions and simplifications made) listed and 0.4 0.2 0
defined?
Are the methods, which were used to evaluate the risk
13 0.2 0.1 0
of bias of individual studies and how this

information is to be used in data synthesis, described?

Were the principal summary measures (risk ratio,

14 0.4 0.2 0
difference in means) stated?
Is the number of studies screened: included upon
15 assessment for eligibility and excluded upon giving the 0.6 0.3 0
reasons in each stage of exclusion presented?
16 Are the characteristics of studies presented in the
Systemiza- included articles, according to which the data were 0.6 0.3 0
tion and extracted (e.g., study size, follow-up period, type of
analysis of respondents) presented?
17 data Are the evaluations of beneficial or harmful
(2.2 points) outcomes for each study presented? (a) simple 0.4 0.2 0
summary data for each intervention group; b) effect
estimates and confidence intervals)
Are the extracted and systemized data from studies
18 presented in the tables according to individual tasks? 0.6 0.3 0

Are the main findings summarized and is their

19 0.4 0.2 0
relevance indicated?
Discussion Are the limitations of the performed systemic review
20 0.4 0.2 0
(1.4 points) discussed?
Does author present the interpretation of the results?
21 0.4 0.2 0
Do the conclusions reflect the topic, aim and tasks of
22 0.2 0.1 0
Conclusions the Master’s thesis?
23 (0.5 points) Are the conclusions based on the analysed material? 0.2 0.1 0
24 Are the conclusions clear and laconic? 0.1 0.1 0
Is the references list formed according to the
25 0.4 0.2 0
requirements?
Are the links of the references to the text correct?
26 References Are the literature sources cited correctly and precisely? 0.2 0.1 0
(1 point)
Is the scientific level of references suitable for Master’s
27 0.2 0.1 0
thesis?
Do the cited sources not older than 10 years old form at
28 least 70% of sources, and the not older than 5 years – at 0.2 0.1 0
least 40%?
Additional sections, which may increase the collected number of points
Do the presented annexes help to understand the
29 Annexes +0.2 +0.1 0
analysed topic?
Practical
Are the practical recommendations suggested and are
30 recommen- +0.4 +0.2 0
they related to the received results?
dations
Were additional methods of data analysis and their
31 results used and described (sensitivity analyses, meta- +1 +0.5 0
regression)?

Was meta-analysis applied? Are the selected statistical

32 methods indicated? Are the results of each meta- +2 +1 0
analysispresented?
General requirements, non-compliance with which reduce the number of points
Is the thesis volume sufficient (excluding 15-20 pages (- <15pages (-
33
annexes)? 2 points) 5points)
Is the thesis volume increased artificially?
34 -2 points -1 point
Does the thesis structure satisfy the
35 -1 point -2 points
requirements of Master’s thesis?
Is the thesis written in correctlanguage,
36 -0.5 point -1 points
scientifically, logically andlaconically?
Are there any grammatical, styleor computer
37 -2 points -1 points
literacy-relatedmistakes?
Is text consistent, integral, and are the
38 -0.2 point -0.5 points
General volumes of its structural parts balanced?
requirements >20% (not evaluated)
39 Amount of plagiarism in the thesis.
40 Is the content (names of sections and sub-
sections and enumeration of pages) in -0.2 point -0.5 points
compliance with the thesis structure and
aims?
41 Are the names of the thesis parts in
compliance with the text? Are the titles of -0.2 point -0.5 points
sections and sub-sections distinguished
logically and correctly?
Are there explanations of the key terms and
42 -0.2 point -0.5 points
abbreviations (if needed)?
Is the quality of the thesis typography
43 (quality of printing, visual aids, binding) -0.2 point -0.5 points
good?
*In total (maximum 10 points):
*Remark: the amount of collected points may exceed 10 points.
Reviewer’s comments: ___________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________ ___________________________
Reviewer’s name and surname Reviewer’s signature
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ANNEX No. 3 ………………………………………………………………... 3

EVALUATION TABLE OF THE MASTER’S THESIS OF THE TYPE OF 4
SYSTEMIC REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE (Annex No. 8) ........
SUMMARY …………………………………………………………………. 9
ABBREVIATION LIST ……………………………………………………... 10
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………... 12
1 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ARTICLES AND SEARCH METHODS 14
AND STRATEGY …………………………………………………………...
2 DATA SYSTEMING AND ANALYSIS …………………………………. 16
3 RESULTS 17
3.1 INTRAORAL SCANNER FEATURES ……………………………………. 17
3.2 THE DIGITAL IMPRESSION IN COMPARISON TO THE 19
CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSION ………………………………………….
3.3 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS ……………… 21
3.3.1 ORTHODONTICS FIELD …………………………………………………... 21
3.3.2 PROSTHODONTICS FIELD ………………………………………………... 22
3.3.3 IMPLANTOLOGY FIELD ………………………………………………….. 23
4 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS …………………………………………. 25
4. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ………………………………………………….. 30
4. 2 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS ……………………………………………….. 30
CONCLUSIONS ……………………………………………………………. 31
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… 33
ANNEXES …………………………………………………………………... 38
EVALUATION FORM OF THE MASTER’S THESIS FOR THE 39
MEMBER OF DEFENCE COMMITTEE (Annex No. 10) ………………….
 INTRAORAL SCANNER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CURRENT LITERATURE

SUMMARY

Aim: To evaluate the mechanisms and differences of commercially available intraoral scanners.
Objectives:
1. To update the knowledge of the differences behind commercially available intraoral scanners.
2. To compare the digital impression to the conventional impression.
3. To shed a light on clinical applications of current intraoral scanners.
4. To describe different factors that could influence the measurements when evaluating the
accuracy of intraoral scanner.
Methodology: this was a Systematic Literature review where searches were conducted using several
databases PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Scopus, TechStreet and IADR Abstracts. The period has
covered the last 5 years. The search period lasted two months and the last search date was last search
data was on the 28th of February of 2019. All the articles that could be obtained as full text have been
assessed. The search was performed in accordance with PRISMA statement and articles were selected
according to predetermined inclusion criteria. The only qualitative assessment was, that in vivo studies
were assed with a higher quality than in vitro studies. Keywords were matched to database indexing
terms. 57 studies were selected and analysed to carry out this Final Master Thesis.
Results and conclusions: Intraoral scanner are clinical acceptable for short term scans. In terms of full
arch, partially edentulous and full edentulous impression the conventional impression should be still
clinically preferred.
Intraoral scanning is in none of the found applications unanimity gold standard.
The intra oral scanner has a wide field of possible applications, but still has to become clinical
standard.
Factors influencing the scan result were found, still more research is needed to connect it to a specific
scanner system and therefore improve the scan results further.
Keywords: "intraoral scanner", "oral scanner", "digital impression", “CAD/CAM”, "accuracy intraoral
scanner", "comparison of intraoral scanner".

ABBREVIATION LIST
APD Avalanche photodiode
AWS Active wavefront sampling
CAD Computer-aided design
CAM Computer-aided manufacturing
CBCT Cone-beam computed tomography
CLSM Confocal laser scanner microscopy
C.O.S Chairside Oral Scanner
CT Computer tomography
DICOM Digital Imaging and
Communications in Medicine
D.W.I.S Dental Wings Intraoral Scanner
FDM Full dentate model
FEM Fully edentulous model
FLA Finish line accuracy
FLD Finish line distinctiveness
IOS Intraoral scanner
ISO International Organisation for
Standardization
OBJ Object code
PEM Partially edentulous model
PLY Polygon file
PMT Photo multiplier tube
SD Standard deviation
STL Standard tessellation language
SWS Static wavefront sampling
3D Three-dimensional
2D Two-dimensional
VSE Vinylsiloxanether
VSES Scannable vinylsiloxanether
 INTRODUCTION

Prior to the 19th century, missing teeth were replaced via the employment of various materials,
such as gold wire and wood and ivory blocks; later the method evolved through the usage of rigid
dental plaster, which was used intraorally to document the intraoral status.
It was not till 1930, when the first hydrocolloids came up: agar and alginates. They had
massive advantages over the gypsum: more accurate, more comfortable for the patient, faster and less
mistake prone. Nevertheless, they have some disadvantages, such as their fast shrinkage and distortion
over time, they are not highly accurate and taking an impression is not entirely comfortable for the
patient. Moreover, agar has the downside that it needs to be heated to become fluid and cooled to
become solid, requiring special impression trays with water cooling. On the other hand, alginate is
easier to handle than agar, hence its wider utilization. Consequently, the search for a better impression
material continues.
In 1950, synthetic elastomers were introduced in dentistry. During the decades of 1960 and
1970 new materials were introduced, being these: dental polyether and silicone (type 1 and 2);
nevertheless, with the idea of improving their accuracy, in 1980 a hybrid between polyether and
silicone was developed. However, still had some disadvantages, being discomfort for the patient;
mistake prone due to its long chain procedure, which includes volumetric changes and expansion of
the gypsum, and difficulty to operate, therefore, still inaccurate. Experienced technicians are needed to
equalize these small deviations [1]. As a result, conventional impression seems susceptible to fail.
Nonetheless, digital impression seems to overcome the conventional method in some of these points.
In 1973, Dr. Duret presented his thesis “Optical Impression”, later he patented the first
computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) device, which was able to
produce a crown in 4 hours. Following, in 1980, Dr. Mörmann and Marco Brandestini introduced the
first digital oral scanner. This laid the fundamentals for CERECs, which led to the first commercially
available CAD/ CAM system for dental restorations in 1987. Since then, many companies have
recognized its potential and have started to produce their own intraoral scanner (IOS). As a result, a
competition between industries occurred, which resulted in more user friendly and accurate IOS [2].
Although the many technological advancements in CAD/CAM technology and their increasing
popularity, it is still not the standard technology used in taking impressions [3].
The objective of this master thesis is to answer the following questions: are there differences
between current intraoral scanner systems?, what are the differences between the digital and
conventional impression systems?, what are the current clinical applications of intraoral scanners? and
what factors could affect the results of intraoral scanners?
HYPOTHESIS
Digital IOS are comparable to the conventional impression method in all aspects and can be
used for the same clinical applications.

AIM
To evaluate the mechanisms and differences of commercial available intraoral scanners.

OBJECTIVES
1. To update the knowledge of the differences behind commercially available intraoral
scanners.
2. To compare the digital impression to the conventional impression.
3. To shed a light on clinical applications of current intraoral scanners.
4. To describe different factors that could influence the measurements when evaluating the
accuracy of intraoral scanner.
 1. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ARTICLES AND SEARCH
METHODS AND STRATEGY INTRAORAL SCANNER
FEATURES

• Article eligibility criteria: well written, verifiable, broad coverage, neutral and stable.
• Criteria for adding articles: right topic, stable, English or German language.
• Criteria for rejecting articles: not older than 5 years, reviews and experimental studies.

Nedelcu et al. [4] suggested that it poses a challenge to compare the results of existing studies,
because of the heterogeneity of each study in terms of design, execution and material properties.
Müller et al. [5] established a significant difference in the accuracy of the Trios pod scanner,
when the scan strategy was changed, which agrees Park et al. [6] results. In addition, Prudence et al.
[1] demonstrated that there is a statistical difference in the accuracy of IOS using powder and
adjustments in the intaglio surface. Nevertheless, he achieved better results for the Omnican (powder
free, according to the manufacturer) by using powdering and adjustments in the intaglio surface. This
is in concordance with Nedelcu et al. [4], who found a significant difference between the accuracy of
coating and non-coating IOS. Furthermore, was able to demonstrate that there is a statistical difference
between the results, depending on what material was scanned. On the other hand, Li et al. [7]
researched the influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free IOS,
concluding that an increased translucency leads to a decreased accuracy. Moreover, the temperature at
which the scan is performed could slightly influence the result after ISO-12836 specifications [6].
Imburgia et al. [2] suggested that the more edentulous areas are, the lower the accuracy is, which he
demonstrated by reporting that PEM scans were more accurate than FEM scans.
Rödiger et al. [8] proved that there is a significant difference in the materials used in the
CAD/CAM process in regards to the marginal fit of the produced coping. For this purpose, he
evaluated the marginal gaps of titanium, chrome-cobalt, zirconia and glass ceramic copings. His
results showed that titanium had the lowest mean marginal gap, but a high standard deviation (SD)
value. On the other hand, glass ceramic had the highest mean marginal gap, but a lower SD allowing it
to perform for all tests below the 120 mark. Furthermore, another two studies suggested that the
stitching process of some IOS can influence the scan result, in which collected images are stitched
together to acquire a 3D image. However, this calculating process is mistake prone, either because the
images itself are faulty or through the image modification small inaccuracies develop, which lowers
the precision [4, 9].
 Haddadi et al. [10] established that the use of different software versions can significantly
influence the scan result. In addition, according to Hayama et al. [11] another influencing factor can be
the scanner head size, suggesting a difference in accuracy depending on which scanner head was used.
He concluded that the use of a bigger scanner head size would increase the accuracy of the scan results
[11].
Giminez et al. [12] reported a tendency between the scan results of experienced with
inexperienced operators, in which the experienced operators achieved better results.
 2. DATA SYSTEMING AND ANALYSIS

The updating knowledge about intraoral scanners is of great amplitude. For selecting the
literature, the following databases were used: PubMed, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Scopus, TechStreet
and IADR Abstracts. The terms used were: "intraoral scanner", "oral scanner", "digital impression",
“CAD/CAM”, "accuracy intraoral scanner", "comparison of intraoral scanner". Keywords were
matched to database indexing terms.
The research selection scheme was performed according to PRISMA requirements: 329 original
articles were obtained. Later, filters were applied to the articles: be human, not older than five years
and written in English or German language, 87 articles were excluded because of the language and
topic. Then the remaining 242 articles were further assessed regarding eligibility, 93 articles were
excluded as they did not fulfil the required criteria for verifiable, broad coverage, neutrality and
stability. After that, the sparing 149 articles were additionally filtered according their topics and
relevance for this Master’s Thesis. Literature reviews, letters and meta-analysis were excluded. After
that, 57 studies were selected and analysed to carry out this Final Master Thesis. Following the
selection of the articles, the remaining articles were divided into specific topics: comparison of
intraoral scanner (9 articles), comparison of digital and conventional impression (12 articles), factors
influencing scan results (7 articles), prosthodontics (21 articles) and orthodontics (8 articles).
However, some of the articles could be used in more than one topic. Moreover, the author evaluated
the quality of in vivo and in vitro studies.
The selection of articles was finished on the 28th of February of 2019, no articles were later added.
 3. RESULTS

3. 1 INTRAORAL SCANNER FEATURES

In order to mention the features of IOS, we should start by looking at its evolution, and so as to
do that, we should start by the history of the CAD/CAM system. In 1984, the first CAD/CAM
chairside developed by Cerec produced inlays with a marginal discrepancy of 140 to 256μm. Only ten
years later, the Cerec 2 was already able to produce full crowns with a marginal fit of 50 to 150μm.
Both Cerecs used two-dimensional (2D) imaging, until 2003, when the Cerec 3 was developed and
upgraded to three-dimensional (3D) imaging. The change from 2D to 3D images, increased the
accuracy of the CAD/CAM system, so that nowadays marginal fit values of 40μm were described [1].
But, actually, how is a 3D image created? To acquire 3D images commercially available IOS
uses either confocal laser scanner microscopy (CLSM), triangulation techniques, optical coherent
tomography, accordion fringe interferometry and active wavefront sampling or a subtle variation of
those aforementioned. Then, the achieved 3D image is processed by a scanning software, which
creates points cloud. These point clouds are then connected to triangles; however, each scanner can use
a different number of triangles to reproduce the same image. In addition, a mesh of triangles can be
regular and irregular, achieving the irregular arrangement a higher accuracy in specific needed sectors
[2].
In comparison to the current IOS, which uses video image acquisition, the first IOS mostly
used camera image acquisition, in which the picture is taken by an auto-shutter and for a specific
programmed moment. For instance, in the bluecam, the auto-shutter is triggered when the camera
touches the teeth. However, if the camera is moved in this precise moment, the later image will appear
blurred; thus, so as to achieve a clear image, normally more than one attempt is needed, meaning that
this method is time and skill dependent. Contrarily, with video image acquisition you have a
continuous video, which decreases the noise in the image through shaking [3, 4].
An additional important feature of IOS is the time needed to take an impression. Patzelt et al.
[5] demonstrates that there is a significant difference between the time needed to take an oral
impression by the different IOS systems. Moreover, he described that on the one hand, the Cerec
system with camera acquisition was the fastest method in recording a single abutment, and on the other
hand, the Lava C.O.S with video acquisition was the fastest in recording a full arch [5]. This is in
agreement with Treesh et al. [6], which declared that the scan times of continuous capture scanners
were faster than the single capture scanners. Nonetheless, there are other factors playing a role in the
image acquisition, like the size of the scan, software and handling and calculating power [5].
 Furthermore, powdering was employed in some early systems so as to decrease the tooth
surface reflection; for this purpose, titanium oxide powder was used. Besides, at that time, only a
single colour of light was used, hence the use of powdering. For instance, the bluecam used blue LED,
which emitted only blue light; this was problematic for surfaces with different light reflectivity, since
the discrepancy between the light reflections could produce an unclear image. Therefore, titanium
oxide powder was used, as produces a uniform surface diminishing the variations in reflection.
Nowadays, newer developed systems use different ranges of lights, like the Omnicam, which uses
white LED emitting red, green and blue light, allowing the use of different light wavelengths for a
much clearer image acquisition with less variables. Moreover, the white LED allows to deal with a
wider range of surface reflectivity [3, 4].
A further subject that should be mentioned is that most systems became “opened”, meaning
that the data is saved in an open format (like Standard tessellation language (STL), Object code (OBJ),
Polygon file (PLY)), which can be immediately used by any CAD system. The STL is the standard
system used, whether the OBJ is exclusively used by wavefront IOS and the PLY files are used for
colour information [7]. In comparison, the “closed” system has only the reference proprietary format
as output, which is encoded to be only opened by a software of the same manufacturer. Nevertheless,
some manufacturers offer to convert the files into an “opened” format for a charge, but this may result
in the loss of quality and information. Therefore, the clearly advantage of the “open” system is the
freedom of use and financial charge. On the other hand, the “closed” system is more user friendly as it
uses the same software. Nonetheless, Mangano et al. [2] explains that both systems have their
advantages and proposes that some newer systems let the user choose if the file should be saved in an
open or close format.

Table 1. Evaluation of intraoral scanner features, 2019 [7-12]

Feature Advantages Disadvantages
Image acquisition Camera - Many images, many are
blurred
Video Faster, user-friendly -
Coating Powder Less reflected light Unpleasant, mistake prone

Powder-free Pleasant, less mistake prone -

File Format “Opened” More variable, cheaper Requires expertise

“Closed” Easier to handle Dependent on fees

Combined Advantages from both -

formats
Colour 134 121 +13
Caries detector 202 210 -10
3. 2 THE DIGITAL IMPRESSION IN COMPARISON TO THE CONVENTIONAL
IMPRESSION

When comparing the digital cast to a conventional cast, we see that the digital has some
advantages over the conventional, such as more efficient data storage and retrieval, increased
diagnostic versatility, easier transferability, easier customization, superior durability and decreased
processing time [8, 9]. But, on the other hand, the conventional impression has shown some resistance
in the private practice sector, since it is accurate, well accepted and inexpensive [9, 10]. Nevertheless,
conventional impressions have been reported as unpleasant and burdensome for the patient [9].
Five in vivo [11-16] and one in vitro [5] studies compared the efficiency and patient’s
preference of both digital and conventional impression. The results of these studies are in opposition,
since four studies [5, 11, 13, 14] concluded that the patients preferred the digital impression, whereas
the conventional impression was chosen by only one study [15]. Furthermore, two studies reported
patient’s discomfort during the digital impression, because of the large scanner head [15, 16].
Interestingly both studies came to different conclusions, being that one study described more
comfortable the digital impression [16], while in contrast the other reported the conventional
impression method [15]. However, only one study tested in vivo the patient’s preferences in
prosthodontics, establishing that the digital impression had a higher patient satisfaction when
impressions for single crowns were made [14].
Burzynsky et al. [9] evaluated the patient’s time perception. All impression methods were rated
faster than expected, suggesting that the iTero group was perceived as the fastest. On the other hand,
when assessing the chair-side time the alginate was the fastest, followed by the iTero with no
significant difference, nonetheless, the Trios was established as the slowest showing a significant
difference in comparison to the other two methods [16]. This conclusion contradicts some findings of
the current literature, which proposes that the digital impression requires less time than the
conventional impression [5, 14]. In addition, the results from Burzynsky et al. [9] can be explained
since was only considered the chair-time and preparation and processing times were excluded. This is
in agreement with the results obtained by Patzelt et al. [14] and Grünheid et al. [15] concluding that
the conventional impression had shorter chair-time, but when considering the full-time method, the
digital group was faster [15].
Another important factor to considered, is the time needed for rescans or retakes of an
impression. Lee et al. [17] showed a time difference of up to 10 minutes in favour of the digital group.
The impressions were performed by inexperienced second-year dental students onto other students,
later both group were asked about their perception of both techniques. The majority concluded that the
digital technique was easier to perform [17]; thus, indicating that the digital impression is in general
well-accepted by the dentist as well as by the dental patient and has, in terms of comfort, efficiency
and handling, slight advantages over the conventional impression [15].
Nonetheless, all the advantages of digital scanners would not be relevant, if their accuracy and
efficiency was not comparable to conventional impression [15]. However, before being able to speak
about the accuracy of IOS, a definition of accuracy should be given. Many authors defined it by using
the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) 5725, which describes accuracy by two
measurements: trueness and precision [18-21]. Precision describes how close repeated scans are to
each other, the higher the precision of IOS is, the more predictable is its measurement. Trueness
describes how exact the measurement is to the real dimensions of an object [18-22]. Trueness and
precision of conventional impressions were normally assessed by measuring the changes between the
original master model and the model from the impression material. In vivo, normally, the fit of the
restoration is evaluated to make a conclusion of the impression material trueness. Moreover, repeated
impressions can be made from one arch and can be compared with each other so as to establish the
precision of the to be tested material [18]. In addition, they have shown a high level of accuracy [18,
19].
Ender et al. [18] compared in an in vivo study the trueness and precision of five conventional
impression systems with seven digital impression systems. The models from conventional impressions
were scanned and saved as a STL file. The digital impression scan was saved as well as STL files,
thus, the scan data could be superimposed using a best fit algorithm. Ender et al. [18] concluded that
the conventional group showed the highest accuracy, with exception of the alginate group. However,
the digital group achieved equal and even higher precision values than the alginate test group.
Nonetheless, vinylsiloxanether (VSE) and direct scannable vinylsiloxanether (VSES) achieved the best
values in precision and the digital group achieved also good values in precision, but suffered, in terms
of trueness, local deviations [18]. This in concordance with the results of two other studies, which
came to similar results [23, 24]. One study compared digital impressions to polyvynil siloxane
impressions [24] and the other study compared digital impression to impregum, both concluding that
the conventional impression is still more accurate for full-arch impressions [23, 24]. Nedelcu et al.
[25] performed an in vivo study, in which the digital group of 3m and Trios showed higher accuracy
than the impregum impression; however, no statistical difference between these two groups was found
[25].
3. 3 CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS

Nowadays, researches manifest that the longer the scan is, the lessen accurate the IOS are [25-
27]. Park et al. [26] analysed the accuracy of four different IOS, in terms of the distance of the scan’s
starting point, establishing that all four IOS were more inaccurate the further the starting point was.
Therefore, concluding that IOS are accurate for short distances, but inaccurate for full arch scans [26,
28]. On the other hand, Nedelcu et al. [25] tested in vivo the accuracy of three IOS with an implant
scan body, proving that IOS are clinically acceptable when restoring up to ten units without extended
edentulous spans.
IOS are applicable in the fields of orthodontics, prosthodontics and implantology [25-47]
(Table 2).

Table 2. Enrolment in local colleges [25-47]

Field Applications Remark
General General applicable for up to Comparable to conventional
10 units scans impression

Digital patient Can be used in many fields:

orthodontics, prosthodontics,
implantology, surgery, etc.
Orthodontics - Diagnosis Higher chance of clinical error
- Treatment planning
- Documentation
Prosthodontics - Single restorations or - Crown shows good marginal
partial fixed restorations fit
- Complete dentures - Usable, but with restrictions
Implantology - Guided implantology - IOS data more reliable than
- Implant impression CBCT data
- Usable, but with restrictions (i.
e.: edentulous areas)

3. 3. 1 Orthodontics field
Carmadella et al. [29] demonstrated that the measurements of digital casts have a higher
chance of clinically relevant error than the measurements from the conventional casts; however,
paradoxically he assumed that the Trios colour could be used to replace the conventional impression.
Nonetheless, Manuelli et al. [30] compared the intercanine and intermolar measurements of
conventional casts with the measurements of 3D printed casts gotten from a STL file, although
reporting a statistical significant difference between the measurements, no clinically significant
difference was found, as the difference was less than 0.1mm. That was defended by Sfondrini et al.
[13] as he concluded that IOS are able to produce digital models useful in the clinical practice for
diagnosis, treatment planning and documentation of treatment outcomes.
Furthermore, it is now possible to merge IOS, cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and
face scans so as to create a digital patient. This requires the successful superimposition of three
different formats: the STL, the PLY or OBJ formats used by IOS; the Digital Imaging and
Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format used by CBCT, and OBJ files from facial scan [31-
33]. Joda et al. [31] proposed a successful technique of superimposing this data creating a virtual
patient. This technology can be useful in the field of orthodontics, for example in orthognathic surgery,
in the creation of surgical guidelines, in the placement of orthodontic mini-screws and in the exposure
of ectopic teeth. In addition, it has the advantage that the root position can be visualized throughout the
whole treatment, simply by scanning the teeth instead of performing multiple computer tomography
(CT) scans, avoiding the patient unnecessary exposure to radiation [32].
This technique has a wide range of applications in different fields. In dentistry and medicine is useful
in the matters of simulating treatment planning and discovering patient’s expectations, facilitates a
more effective patient-doctor communication and the achievement of high-precision anatomical
documentation, keeping in mind that is a non-invasive imaging technique, hence its implementation in
dental education. Besides, it is very helpful in maxillofacial and plastic surgery fields [31].

3. 3. 2 Prosthodontics field
In the field of prosthodontics, a good marginal fit and internal fit of the later fixed restoration is
of high importance to achieve a high rate of long term success [33, 34]. To which paragraph belongs?
However, there is no clinical definition about what exactly the maximal marginal deviation should be
so as to be assessed as a successful treatment. McLean and von Fraunhofer proposed the value as
120μm, after examining over 1000 marginal gaps in a 5 years period [33, 35]. Moreover, several
studies analysed the influence of IOS on the marginal fit of crowns, describing a clinical acceptable
marginal fit of crowns fabricated by digital scans [14, 36-39].
Currently, just few studies describe the use of IOS when fabricating complete dentures.
Goodacre et al. [40] proposed a technique to fabricate a complete denture and implant overdenture;
also, the patient reported to be pleased with the retention, stability and aesthetic of his new denture.
However, the study has some limitations, which are that the denture was not completely new
fabricated, since the existing dentures were scanned and used to create the new ones. This results in an
agreement with Clark et al. [41], who suggested a similar technique able to fabricate two complete
dentures. As well, the existing dentures were scanned and the new printed copies were used as a
custom tray to achieve a better retention than the existing dentures. He concluded: “Most steps of the
conventional denture workflow now have digital alternatives—even auxiliary procedures, including
denture duplication and processed record bases”.
When comparing fabricated restorations by conventional or digital impression, on the one
hand, two studies found no significant difference [14, 36], on the other hand, three studies reported
that the digital impression achieved better results than the conventional [25, 36]. Berrendero et al. [36]
reported that “digital impression provided a lower mean gap value for three of the four measurement
points, in comparison with conventional impressions and gypsum casts scanned with a standard
benchtop laboratory scanner”. However, Nedelcu et al. [21] reported a higher finish line accuracy
(FLA) and better finish line distinctiveness (FLD) in the digital test group. Nonetheless, it should be
mention that this study was an in vitro experiment and the finish line, was except for two locations,
supragingival. Accordingly, the clinical reality may prove as a more challenging setup [21].
Notwithstanding, Sarkominon et al. [14] performed an in vivo experiment resulting in no significant
difference between the digital and conventional group.

3. 3. 3 Implantology field
Joda et al. [31] declared that computer-assisted implant guided-surgery in combination with 3D
planning software offers an additional tool in a prosthetic oriented digital treatment concept, which
considers the individual situation of each patient. In addition, Brand et al. [42] compared the accuracy
of implant position in guided surgery, based either on CBCT or IOS data, concluding that the implant
position showed a higher accuracy by IOS, thus, being a more feasible diagnostic alternative.
Nonetheless, a highly true and precise digital model is needed when manufacturing implant-supported
prosthetic rehabilitation, since clinical relevant errors can lead to a decreased long-term success rates
of implant supported prosthesis or of the implant itself, for instance loosening of screws, cracking of
aesthetic components and framework fractures, which all can affect the success of the prosthetic
components [43].
Studies concerning the accuracy of IOS have reported clinical acceptable values concerning the
accuracy of IOS in short span scans [25, 44]. However, Nedelcu et al. [25] was the only in vivo study
that found clinically acceptable accuracy for up to ten units scans, in which one of the units was
implant abutment. Fukuzawa et al. [44] came to the same conclusion, as he tested the accuracy of IOS
on two models with an opposing difference between the implant posts. When the distance between the
implant abutments was extended to twofold, the rate of change in the distance error almost doubled.
These results are in agreement with Imburgia et al. [45] as he tested the accuracy of four IOS
(CS3600, Trios3, Omnicam and TrueDefinition) on two different models: partially edentulous model
(PEM) with three implants and fully edentulous model (FEM), both were out of gypsum with a gingiva
mask around the implant. The models were scanned, five times each, with a reference scanner for the
specific IOS. Later the scans were superimposed so as to achieve values of trueness and precision of
the tested scanner. A significance difference regarding trueness was found between the tested IOS,
CS3600 showed the best values in trueness, as well as for PEM and FEM group (Table 3). To sum up,
all scanners showed a significant difference between their values for the PEM and FEM group, and the
accuracy of all tested digital impression systems were higher in the FEM than in the PEM group [50].
Nonetheless, Ajioka et al. [46] concluded that for impressions on a PEM model with two implant
abutments on position 35# and 36# the error of the digital impression was greater than the one of
conventional impression. In addition, study shows that longer healing abutments increase the accuracy
of angulations measurements [46].
Ciocca et al. [43] digitally scanned a FEM model with 6 implant abutments. In comparison to
Giminez et al. [47], the abutment surface was reduced to single spatial points, which were then
superimposed by a best-fit software, concluding that the average 3D position error of the digital
impression was 0.041 ± 0.023mm to 0.082 ± 0.030mm, which is in accordance with previous studies
and suggests a clinically acceptable level of accuracy [43]. However, even edentulous areas in a full-
arch digital impression may generate errors due to the collimation process that uses geometrical repair
points [48]. On the other hand, Iturrate et al. [28] proposed the use of an auxiliary device, which could
increase the accuracy of the implant abutment scans in full edentulous arches. An in vivo study
compared full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations produced by both digital and conventional
impressions, in which 50 metal framework prosthesis were screwed onto 6 implants and the bar-
implant accuracy was radiologically estimated. The bone resorption was documented for a period of 24
months, resulting in that the digital group had a mean bone loss of 1.11 ± 0.54mm compared to 1.07 ±
0.66mm of the conventional. The bar-implant accuracy was reported to be high and no voids were
found. Therefore, it was concluded that no statistical significance was found in the success rate of full
arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations fabricated by means of conventional or digital
impressions [48].
Table 3. Trueness and precision of four IOS [50]

Scanner Trueness PEM Trueness FEM Precision PEM/FEM

CS3600 45.8μm 60.6μm ± 1.6μm/± 11.7μm
Trios 50.2μm 67.2μm ± 2.5μm/± 6.9μm
Omnicam 58.8μm 66.4μm ± 1.6μm/± 3.9μm
TrueDefinition 61.4μm 106.4μm ± 3.0μm/± 23.1μm
Average 54,05μm 75,15μm ±2,175μm/±11,4μm
 4. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

One of the first methods used to substitute absent teeth was through the usage of gold wire,
which threaded together the human and the artificial teeth. Later the technique evolved into carving
blocks of wood and ivory so as to accommodate the intraoral contours. All these processes led to a
better understanding of the oral tissues, resulting in the development of new impression techniques and
materials [53]. However, despite the efforts, rigid dental plaster was used intraorally to record the
intraoral situation till the beginning of the 19th century; these had to be intraorally fragmented, just so
as to be glued together again extraorally [54].
Since 1930, is the conventional impression is the clinical standard method in dentistry, whereas
the digital impression could still not assert itself in the clinical practice [15].
This master thesis has the purpose to update the knowledge about IOS regarding their clinical
application and factors influencing the scan’s results, as well as comparing the different IOS systems
and the digital impression to the conventional.

There are a series of coincident findings in almost all the articles reviewed:
1. The data obtained by IOS is processed by a scanning software. This software creates a point
mesh to acquire a 3D imagen, then the image is transformed into surfaces and triangles are
formed between the points. Each scanning system uses a different count of points and triangles
to depict the same image. Current literature defines the count of triangles as the triangle
resolution. Correspondent results show that a higher triangle resolution not necessarily means
that IOS are more accurate in comparison to another system with a lower triangle resolution [2,
21, 25]. However, Dentsply Sirona developed a software that is able to increase the triangle
count at points where high accuracy is needed (finish line) and to reduce it at points where does
not need to be so accurate [55].
2. The image or data can be either captured by individual images (camera) or by video sequence.
Most of the found literature establishes that scanners operating with video sequence are more
accurate, despite image stitching. Moreover, in terms of time efficiency, the current literature
suggests that video sequence scanner require less time than individual image scanner [5, 6, 22,
25, 26].
3. Patient’s satisfaction and time efficacy are important factors in the acceptance of an impression
system. In regard to that matter, digital impression seems to be better prepared for the dental
patient and has less chair time than the conventional method [11-16].
 4. Conventional impression shows the best accuracy for full arch impressions, which is in
agreement with other findings that state that IOS become more inaccurate the longer the scan
is. However, opposite findings were found by Nedelcu et al. [25]; nonetheless, his results could
be explained since only ten units instead of the full arch were scanned [10, 18, 23-25].
5. Data acquired from CBCT, facial scan and IOS can be superimposed, creating a digital patient,
which has a broad spectrum of applications in various fields, such as in dentistry, medicine,
maxillofacial and plastic surgery [31-33].
6. Crowns fabricated by digital scans show an acceptable marginal fit. Therefore, suggesting that
the use of IOS is clinical acceptable, when producing crowns or for short span restorations [14,
21, 25, 36-39].
7. Coating or no coating, object translucency and scan strategy are the main factors influencing
the results of the scan.

As a result of the different gathered literature and the establishment of the aforementioned
coinciding finding, I was able to achieve the objective of this Final Master Thesis by answering the
previously stated questions.

Are there differences between current intraoral scanner systems?

In relation to the current literature, it can be affirmatively concluded that there are differences
between current IOS systems.
IOS are based on different 3D imaging techniques: CLSM, triangulation techniques, optical
coherent tomography, accordion fringe interferometry and active wavefront sampling or a slight
modification of those previously mentioned [2, 54]. However, only two studies were found, in which
the principles were comprehensively and thoroughly described and conclusions were suggested
according to their clinical performances.
Kim et al. [56] compared the trueness mean of the different imagining techniques,
demonstrating that there is a significant difference in regard of the technique employed (Table 3). The
study was conducted in vitro, thus, an in vivo study concerning this topic would be interesting.
Additionally, correspondent finding propose that IOS differ also in their image capture
principle, displaying the video sequence advantages over the individual image principle in terms of
time efficiency and accuracy [5, 6, 22, 25, 56].
On the other hand, triangulation resolution can be different between the different IOS, which
may directly influence their accuracy [25]. Throughout the literature I could establish that the most
important difference between the various IOS appears to be their dissimilarities in accuracy. When
accuracy is considered, we use the definition of ISO 5725; however, by means of ISO 5725 differences
in trueness were found [18-22]. In addition, regarding precision, the results are controversial [2, 10,
25]. Whereas coincident findings from Nedelcu et al. [25] and Imburgia et al. [2] suggest that there is
no significant difference in precision, Ender et al. [10] suggest the opposite by establishing a
significant difference in the precision of the different IOS systems.
Furthermore, one more difference would be the need for coating, which is used by IOS systems
in regard of different wavelengths [3, 4]. Earlier systems used a single wavelength resulting in high
translucent or reflective materials, which could lead to errors in the outcomes. Consequently, arose the
need for coating. Nowadays, the materials are coated with a slim titandioxide film that makes the
material opaquer [3, 4].

Table 3. Comparison of trueness by data capture principle, mode, and powder coating [56]
(Kim R., Park J., Shim J.)

SS-OCT, swept source optical coherence tomography. Superscript letters mean multiple comparison.
*P<.01; **P<.05.
What are the differences between the digital and conventional impression systems?

Based on the data found in the current literature differences between conventional and digital
impression systems in terms of accuracy, time efficiency and patient’s acceptance were established.
Regarding accuracy, it has been corroborated that the conventional impression is the most
accurate when scanning the full arch [18, 23, 24], since the digital impression decreases in accuracy
the longer the scan endures [31]. Therefore, for short lasting scans no significant difference between
both impression systems was found [14, 36-39].
On the other hand, throughout the current literature it has been manifested that the digital
impression chair-time is shorter than the conventional impression [5, 14]. Nevertheless, it is still
controversial the acceptance of one of these methods as the most efficient impression technique [9,
15].
Concerning patient’s acceptance, digital impression method was appointed as the preferred
method by the majority of dental patients [5, 11, 13, 14, 16], however, some studies have suggested the
contrary, meaning that a percentage of the patients opted for the conventional impression method [15].

What are the current clinical applications of intraoral scanners?

The current literature unanimously acknowledges the use of IOS for short span scans [14, 36-
39]. However, this poses an issue: for what distance is IOS clinically acceptable? Nedelcu et al. [25]
was able to answer the problem by suggesting that a span up to ten units is satisfactory.
IOS are clinically applicable in diverse fields.
In orthodontics field, the digital impression method is considered useful in the diagnosis,
treatment planning and documentation [13, 29, 30]. However, the digital impression has a higher
chance of clinical errors and worse accuracy in comparison to the conventional impression system
[29].
In prosthodontics, current literature suggests that digital impressions can be used for single
restorations or short fixed partial restorations [14, 36-39].
In prosthodontics, current literature suggests that digital impressions can be used for single
restorations or short fixed partial restorations [14, 36-39]. Crowns produced by IOS were reported as
clinically acceptable by the majority of studies [36-39]. However, it is still problematic to fabricate a
completely good fitting denture with IOS data; nevertheless, successful cases have been described, in
which an existing prosthesis was replicated and later used as the impression tray or relined.
 In implantology, IOS data has been reported as successful in guided implantology. Moreover,
IOS was found in vivo clinically acceptable for up to ten unit scans with one implant abutment [25].
On the other hand, in vitro was described as suitable for FEM scans with six implant abutments [43].
Nevertheless, edentulous areas seem to decrease the scan’s accuracy [2], therefore, an auxiliary device
is needed to simulate the teeth in these areas, resulting in an increased FEM scan’s accuracy [28].
Furthermore, was reported in vivo the production of full arch screw retained maxillary rehabilitation in
up to six implants by digital impression. All implants showed a success rate of 100%, after immediate
loading, in a period of two years [47].
Moreover, a digital patient has been created, which is suitable in various fields, such as in
orthodontics, surgery, prosthodontics and implantology [31, 32].

What factors could affect the results of intraoral scanners?

The current literature mentions various factors that could influence the scan results: coating,
material consistency and texture, scanning strategy, model composition (FEM, PEM and full dentate
model full dentate model (FDM)), software version, stitching process, data capture principle, mode
and experience of the operator [26, 49, 50-52, 57].
Coating has been suggested to increase the IOS accuracy when the scan system is susceptible
to reflection. Moreover, Nedelcu et al. [57] reported that there was no significant difference when
changing the size of the coating layer.
Moreover, translucency and/ reflectiveness of the object may alter the scan results, since with
an increased objects’ translucency and/or reflectiveness, the less accurate the scan is [49]. Hence the
use of coating so as to decrease them.
Müller et al. [48] recorded that the use of different scan strategies leads to significant
differences. Furthermore, different software versions may also play a role [51].
Furthermore, the experience of the operator seems to influence the scan’s accuracy; however,
there are controversial findings on whether experienced or inexperienced operators achieve the best
results [46]. In addition, different model situations had different accuracies, meaning that the accuracy
can be influenced in regard of specific spaces, such as for edentulous spaces, in which the accuracy is
decreased [2].
4.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I dedicate this thesis to my family for their constant support in me.
Further I would like to thank my supervisor Lect. Eglė Ivanauskienė for her advice thought this
literature review project.

4. 2 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
 CONCLUSIONS

1. There are differences between current intraoral scanner sytems; following differences could be
made out on basis of the current literature; 3D imaging principle, different wavelengths, image
capture, principle, time needed for one scan, scanner head, triangle resolution, trueness and
precision. Still more research is needed to test their performance in context to their differences.

2. Currently, IOS are clinically acceptable for short spans scans, but when it comes to longer
scans and more complicated situations, such as PEM or FEM, the conventional impression is
preferred. Since its accuracy, in comparison to the digital impression in these cases, is the best,
therefore, exhibiting better results.

3. There is a wide field of possible applications, but applications were digital impression can be
seen as clinical standard is limited. In addition, there is no consensus on which particular
applications the digital impression should have. It has been described that it can be used in a
wide range of fields; however, there is no single study that defines its precise employment.
Moreover, as it is being used for various objectives, that can lead to its misuse. For example, it
is not like a caries treatment, everybody knows that its treatment is filling; hence its appropriate
use and ability to improve the technique, which is opposed to IOS. Thus, a detailed literature
should be directed to establish its proper use. However, this objective is difficult to accomplish,
since IOS are very expensive, ergo, only few dentists have it complicating the performance of
studies and researches.

4. There is no agreement on which factors influence the most the IOS system and the scan’s
results, as well as, if there is a specific factor that could affect a particular system. Since the
influencing factors are not fully understood and described that hinders the development and
improvement of future IOS systems, as no specific factor can be improved.

The Hypothesis was rejected, since digital and conventional impressions are not comparable
from a clinical view. The conventional method is still the gold standard method regarding fimpression
taking in dentistry.
 Therefore, as a dentistry student, I prefer, based on the clinical view, the use of the
conventional impression, since it is more accurate and reliable in a wider field of established
applications. Nevertheless, I believe that in the coming years IOS will become the gold standard
method for impression taking in dentistry, due to their reported advantages over the conventional
impression method. This development could occur earlier than expected, as the IOS became cheaper,
possibly leading to more buyers and, thus, broader research field, which would improve the accuracy
of the further developed IOS. Furthermore, new systems were introduced in the dental fare of 2019,
which accuracy and applicability still have to be tested.
 REFERENCES

1. Prudente M, Davi L, Nabbout K, Prado C, Pereira L, Zancopé K et al. Influence of scanner,

powder application, and adjustments on CAD-CAM crown misfit. The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry. 2018;119(3):377-383.
2. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Accuracy of four
intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health.
2017;17(1).
3. Yamamoto M, Kataoka Y, Manabe A. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners by single-
image capture system and full-color movie system. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering.
2017;28(3):305-314.
4. Lee J, Jeong I, Park J, Jeon J, Kim J, Kim W. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained
using intraoral and cast scanners. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2017;117(2):253-259.
5. Patzelt S, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners. The
Journal of the American Dental Association. 2014;145(6):542-551.
6. Treesh J, Liacouras P, Taft R, Brooks D, Raiciulescu S, Ellert D et al. Complete-arch accuracy
of intraoral scanners. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2018;120(3):382-388.
7. Joda T, Gallucci G. The virtual patient in dental medicine. Clinical Oral Implants Research.
2014;26(6):725-726
8. TOMITA Y, UECHI J, KONNO M, SASAMOTO S, IIJIMA M, MIZOGUCHI I. Accuracy of
digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral
scanning. Dental Materials Journal. 2018;37(4):628-633.
9. Burzynski J, Firestone A, Beck F, Fields H, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral
scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018;153(4):534-541.
10. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining
complete-arch dental impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2016;115(3):313-320.
11. Schott T, Arsalan R, Weimer K. Students’ perspectives on the use of digital versus
conventional dental impression techniques in orthodontics. BMC Medical Education.
2019;19(1).
12. Marti A, Harris B, Metz M, Morton D, Scarfe W, Metz C et al. Comparison of digital scanning
and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and
attitudes towards technology. European Journal of Dental Education. 2016;21(3):200-205.
13. Sfondrini M, Gandini P, Malfatto M, Di Corato F, Trovati F, Scribante A. Computerized Casts
for Orthodontic Purpose Using Powder-Free Intraoral Scanners: Accuracy, Execution Time,
and Patient Feedback. BioMed Research International. 2018;2018:1-8.
14. Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’
preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane
material. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2017;118(3):386-391.
15. Grünheid T, McCarthy S, Larson B. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An
assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2014;146(5):673-682.
16. Burzynski J, Firestone A, Beck F, Fields H, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral
scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018;153(4):534-541.
17. Lee S, Betensky R, Gianneschi G, Gallucci G. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant
impressions. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2014;26(6):715-719.
18. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining
complete-arch dental impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2016;115(3):313-320.
19. TOMITA Y, UECHI J, KONNO M, SASAMOTO S, IIJIMA M, MIZOGUCHI I. Accuracy of
digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral
scanning. Dental Materials Journal. 2018;37(4):628-633.
20. Bratos M, Bergin J, Rubenstein J, Sorensen J. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the
accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses. The
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2018;120(2):232-241.
21. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral
scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral
Health. 2018;18(1).
22. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and
Precision. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2014;(86).
23. Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of
full arch impressions in patients. Journal of Dentistry. 2016;55:68-74.
24. Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of Accuracy Between a
Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques. The International Journal of
Prosthodontics. 2018;31(2):107-113.
25. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral
scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. Journal
of Dentistry. 2018;69:110-118.
26. Park G, Son K, Lee K. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital
scan. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2018;.
27. Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Özcan M, Pradíes G. An In Vitro Study of Factors
Influencing the Performance of Digital Intraoral Impressions Operating on Active Wavefront
Sampling Technology with Multiple Implants in the Edentulous Maxilla. Journal of
Prosthodontics. 2016;26(8):650-655.
28. Iturrate M, Minguez R, Pradies G, Solaberrieta E. Obtaining reliable intraoral digital scans for
an implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: A dental technique. The Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry. 2019;121(2):237-241.
29. Camardella L, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O. Accuracy and reproducibility of
measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. Journal
of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 2017;78(3):211-220.
30. Manuelli, M & Huanca Ghislanzoni, Luis & Farronato, Marco & Martintoni, A & Marcolina,
M & Lucchese, Alessandra. (2018). Comparison of linear transverse measures between plaster
and resin printed digital models. Journal of biological regulators and homeostatic agents. 32.
81-85.
31. Joda T, Gallucci G. The virtual patient in dental medicine. Clinical Oral Implants Research.
2014;26(6):725-726.
32. Nilsson J, Richards R, Thor A, Kamer L. Virtual bite registration using intraoral digital
scanning, CT and CBCT: In vitro evaluation of a new method and its implication for
orthognathic surgery. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery. 2016;44(9):1194-1200.
33. Moustapha G, Azzam K, AlShwaimi E, Silwadi M, Ferrari M, Salameh Z. Evaluation of the fit
of zirconia three‐unit fixed partial dentures fabricated by different impression techniques.
Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2019;:e12413.
34. PEDROCHE L, BERNARDES S, LEÃO M, KINTOPP C, CORRER G, ORNAGHI B et al.
Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods.
Brazilian Oral Research. 2016;30(1).
35. Rödiger M, Schneider L, Rinke S. Influence of Material Selection on the Marginal Accuracy of
CAD/CAM-Fabricated Metal- and All-Ceramic Single Crown Copings. BioMed Research
International. 2018;2018:1-8.
36. Berrendero S, Salido M, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradíes G. Influence of conventional and
digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clinical
Oral Investigations. 2016;20(9):2403-2410.
37. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic B, Korduner E, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral Digital
Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized
Clinical Trial. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015;25(4):282-287.
38. Ferrini F, Sannino G, Chiola C, Capparé P, Gastaldi G, Gherlone E. Influence of Intra-Oral
Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(4):544.
39. Dauti R, Cvikl B, Franz A, Schwarze U, Lilaj B, Rybaczek T et al. Comparison of marginal fit
of cemented zirconia copings manufactured after digital impression with lava™ C.O.S and
conventional impression technique. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16(1).
40. Goodacre B, Goodacre C, Baba N. Using Intraoral Scanning to Capture Complete Denture
Impressions, Tooth Positions, and Centric Relation Records. The International Journal of
Prosthodontics. 2018;31:377-381.
41. Clark W, Duqum I, Kowalski B. The digitally replicated denture technique: A case report.
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2018;.
42. Brandt J, Brenner M, Lauer H, Brandt S. Accuracy of a Template-Guided Implant Surgery
System with a CAD/CAM-Based Measurement Method: An In Vitro Study. The International
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2018;33(2):328-334.
43. Ciocca L, Meneghello R, Monaco C, Savio G, Scheda L, Gatto M et al. In vitro assessment of
the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on
implants. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery. 2018;13(7):1097-
1108.
44. Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment
position by intraoral scanners. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2017;61(4):450-459
45. Ajioka H, Kihara H, Odaira C, Kobayashi T, Kondo H. Examination of the Position Accuracy
of Implant Abutments Reproduced by Intra-Oral Optical Impression. PLOS ONE.
2016;11(10):e0164048.
46. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a Digital Impression System
Based on Active Triangulation Technology With Blue Light for Implants. Implant Dentistry.
2015;24(5):498-504.
47. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus Digital
Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical
Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(5):829.
48. Müller P. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the
TRIOS Pod scanner. QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL. 2016;VOLUME 47(NUMBER
4).
49. Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a
powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
2017;117(1):93-101.
50. Flügge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using
Intraoral Scanners. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2016;29(3):277-283
51. .Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Effect of Software Version on the Accuracy of an Intraoral
Scanning Device. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2018;31:375-376.
52. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions
obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous
mandible. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2018;62(3):347-352.
53. 1. Rao S, Chowdhary R, Mahoorkar S. A Systematic Review of Impression Technique for
Conventional Complete Denture. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. 2010;10(2):105-
111.
54. Logozzo S, Zanetti E, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics
– Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering.
2014;54:203-221.
55. Hsuan. New Kid on the Block: Primescan and What It Means for Current and Potential Users
[Internet]. CEREC Digest. 2019 [cited 28 April 2019]. Available from:
https://www.cerecdigest.net/2019/02/06/new-kid-on-the-block-primescan-and-what-it-means/
56. Kim R, Park J, Shim J. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition:
A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
2018;120(6):895-903.e1.
57. Nedelcu R, Persson A. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: An in vitro
comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
2014;112(6):1461-1471.
 ANNEXES

Table 3. Enrolment in local colleges [15-40]

Scanner Marginal fit [7] FLA
Mean SD
Plan scan 40.04 (18.9) Low level of FLA+FLD
3D pro+ 40.20 (21.91)
True Def 40.82 (26.10) Lowest FLD
CS 3500 54.82 (28.86) Good FLD and FLA
CS3600 59.67 (28.72) Similar FLD like CS3500, but better
FLA
Omnicam 61.57 (38.59) Subg. deviations
DWIO 62.49 (31.54) Low level of FLD+FLA
Trios 3 67.95 (30.41) Highest FLD and high FLA = highest
accuracy
Conventional impression
 Annex No. 10
EVALUATION FORM OF THE MASTER’S THESIS FOR THE MEMBER OF DEFENCE
COMMITTEE

Graduate student _________________________________________________________________,

of the year ______, and the group _____ of the integrated study programme of Odontology
Master’s Thesis title: ……………............................………………….……………….....…………
…………………………………………..................................….………………….....……......

Evaluation
No. MT evaluation aspects
Yes Partially No

1 Has the student’s presentation lasted for more than 10 minutes?

Has the student presented the main problem of the Master’s thesis, its
2
aim and tasks?
Has the student provided information on research methodology and main
3
research instruments?

4 Has the student presented the received results comprehensively?

5 Have the visual aids been informative and easy to understand?

6 Has the logical sequence of report been observed?

Have the conclusions been presented? Are they resulting from the
7
results?

8 Have the practical recommendations been presented?

Have the questions of the reviewer and commission’s members been

9
answered correctly and thoroughly?
Is the Master’s thesis in compliance with the essence of the selected
10
study programme?

Remarks of the member of evaluation committee of Master’s Thesis

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation of the Master’s Thesis

_____________________________________________________________________________

Member of the MT evaluation committee:

________________ ___________________________ _____________________

(scientific degree) (name and surname) (signature)
 ProQuest Number: 31261397

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2024 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA