ASSESEMENT OF THE ACXURACY OF SCANNING CAVITY PREPARATIONS FOR ENDOCROWN AT THREE DEPTHS WITH DIFFERENT INTRAORAL SCANNERS: IN VITRO STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70614/1nph8v27Keywords:
tooth preparation for prothesis, CAD/CAMAbstract
Introduction. Intraoral scanners (IOS) are devices that have been gaining popularity in Dentistry, allowing real-time visualization of the scanned object, with greater accuracy and scanning speed. The accuracy of IOS in scanning deep cavities, such as endocrownpreparations, is little discussed in the literature.Objective. To evaluate, in vitro, the scanning reading accuracy of cavity preparations at depths of 2, 4 and 5.5 mm for endocrowns in upper premolars and molars using different IOS models. Methods. Six teeth (upper premolars and molars) were selected from a Pronewâdental manikin to receive cavity preparations for endocrown at depths of 2, 4 and 5.5 mm. Six different IOS models were then used to scan the aforementioned preparations. Using the exocadâ CAD software, measurements were taken to evaluate the reading accuracy of the IOS. The measurements obtained from exocadâ were inserted into an Excelâ spreadsheet and statistically analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), intraclass correlation coefficient (CCI) and confidence interval (CI) of 95%, all with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results. The measures showed good internal consistency and reliability, with an CCI of 0.97 (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant effect on the scanning reading accuracy of cavity preparations at depths 2 and 3 (4 and 5.5 mm) (F2,3 = 87.03; p = 0.002), with depth 1 (2 mm) being statistically different of depths2,3 (4 mm, p = 0.008; 5.5 mm, p = 0.003). However, when considering IOS, there was no difference in interactions (p > 0.05). Conclusion. With the methodological variables similar to those of the real clinical manufacturing process, associated with the results obtained in this in vitro study, it can be considered that the IOS evaluated showed similarity in scanning reading accuracy in cavity preparations at the depths evaluated.
Downloads
References
1. Mörmann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(Suppl):7-13.
2. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Oral Implantol. 2015;7(3):57-70.
3. Ferrini F, Sannino G, Chiola C, Capparé P, Gastaldi G, Gherlone EF. Influence of intraoral scanner (IOS) on the marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM single crowns. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(4):1-9.
4. Gurpinar B, Tak O. Effect of pulp chamber depth on the accuracy of endocrown scans made with different intraoral scanners versus an industrial scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(3):430-437.
5. Stanley M, Paz AG, Miguel I, Coachman C. Fully digital workflow, integrating dental scan, smile design and CAD-CAM: case report. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):1-8.
6. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:8427595. doi:10.1155/2017/8427595.
7. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:1-11.
8. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:1-13.
9. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-129.
10. Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(4):429-434.
11. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(2):221-230.
12. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725-1: accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: general principles and definitions. Geneva: ISO; 2022.
13. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687-1694.
14. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(1):36-42.
15. Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Clinical evaluation of adhesively placed CEREC endocrowns after 2 years—preliminary results. J Adhes Dent. 1999;1(3):255-265.
16. Pissis P. Fabrication of a metal-free ceramic restoration utilizing the monobloc technique. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;7(5):83-94.
17. Shin Y, Park S, Park JW, Kim KM, Park YB, Roh BD. Evaluation of the marginal and internal discrepancies of CAD-CAM endocrowns with different cavity depths: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(1):109-115.
18. Gaintantzopoulou MD, El-Damanhoury HM. Effect of preparation depth on the marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM endocrowns. Oper Dent. 2016;41(6):607-616.
19. Fages M, Bennasar B. The endocrown: a different type of all-ceramic reconstruction for molars. J Can Dent Assoc. 2013;79:d140.
20. Sedrez-Porto JA, Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Münchow EA, Pereira-Cenci T. Endocrown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;52:8-14.
21. Al-Dabbagh RA. Survival and success of endocrowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(3):415-419.
22. Hack GD, Patzelt SBM. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in vitro investigation. ADA Prof Prod Rev. 2015;10:1-5.
23. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(1):11-19.
24. Hayes A, Duvall N, Wajdowicz M, Roberts H. Effect of endocrown pulp chamber extension depth on molar fracture resistance. Oper Dent. 2017;42(3):327-334.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Clínica de Odontologia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
