Comparison of digital models generated from three-dimensional optical scanner and cone beam computed tomography

3차원 광학 스캐너와 콘빔CT에서 생성된 디지털 모형의 비교

  • Kwon, Hyuk-Jin (Department of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Kack-Kyun (Department of Oral Microbiology and Immunology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yi, Won-Jin (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 권혁진 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 치의학과) ;
  • 김각균 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 구강악안면 감염 및 면역학교실) ;
  • 이원진 (서울대학교 치의학대학원 구강악안면방사선학교실)
  • Received : 2016.02.22
  • Accepted : 2016.03.16
  • Published : 2016.03.31


Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital models from 3 dimentional (3D) optical scanner and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: We obtained digital models from 11 pairs of stone casts using a 3D optical scanner and a CBCT, and compared the accuracy of the models. Results: The error range of average positive distance was 0.059 - 0.117 mm and negative distance was 0.066 - 0.146 mm. Statistically (P < 0.05), average positive distance was larger than $70{\mu}m$ and shorter than $100{\mu}m$, and that of negative distance was larger than $100{\mu}m$ and shorter than $120{\mu}m$. Conclusion: We concluded that the accuracy of digital models generated from CBCT is not appropriate to make final prostheses. However, it may be acceptable for provisional restorations and orthodontic diagnoses with respect to the accuracy of the digitalization.


dental casting technique;dental digital radiography;dental models;cone beam computed tomography


Supported by : Ministry of Trade, industry & Energy (MI)


  1. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8.
  2. Bootvong K, Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U, Wong RW, Bendeus M, Yeung S. Virtual model analysis as an alternative approach to plaster model analysis: reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:589-95.
  3. Birnbaum NS, Aaronson HB. Dental impressions using 3D digital scanners: virtual becomes reality. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2008;29:494, 496, 498-505.
  4. Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W. Accuracy of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing- generated dental casts based on intraoral scanner data. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145:1133-40.
  5. Cuperus AM, Harms MC, Rangel FA, Bronkhorst EM, Schols JG, Breuning KH. Dental models made with an intraoral scanner: a validation study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:308-13.
  6. Lee CY, Ganz SD, Wong N, Suzuki JB. Use of cone beam computed tomography and a laser intraoral scanner in virtual dental implant surgery: part 1. Implant Dent 2012;21:265-71.
  7. Frisardi G, Chessa G, Barone S, Paoli A, Razionale A, Frisardi F. Integration of 3D anatomical data obtained by CT imaging and 3D optical scanning for computer aided implant surgery. BMC Med Imaging 2011;11:5.
  8. Swennen GR, Mommaerts MY, Abeloos J, De Clercq C, Lamoral P, Neyt N, Schutyser FA. A cone-beam CT based technique to augment the 3D virtual skull model with a detailed dental surface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:48-57.
  9. Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysis evaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:16.e1-4.
  10. Zhao S, Robertson DD, Wang G, Whiting B, Bae KT. X-ray CT metal artifact reduction using wavelets: an application for imaging total hip prostheses. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2000;19:1238-47.
  11. Lim DO, Seo GS, Kim JY. Korea health industry statistics system - 2013 medical device market research report. Available from: http://www. BOARD358&bbsid=B302&cat_bbsid=&bbs_ seq=415&jkey=&jword=&pg=1&htxt_code=125 3697824500862357829650921550&wj_vcs=&reverseNum=196&forwardNum=1 (updated 2016 Feb 22).
  12. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:19-25.
  13. Mischkowski RA, Pulsfort R, Ritter L, Neugebauer J, Brochhagen HG, Keeve E, Zoller JE. Geometric accuracy of a newly developed cone-beam device for maxillofacial imaging. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;104:551-9.
  14. Kato A, Ohno N. Construction of three-dimensional tooth model by micro-computed tomography and application for data sharing. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:43-6.
  15. Tarazona B, Llamas JM, Cibrian R, Gandia JL, Paredes V. A comparison between dental measurements taken from CBCT models and those taken from a digital method. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:1-6.
  16. Kang SH, Lee JW, Lim SH, Kim YH, Kim MK. Dental image replacement on cone beam computed tomography with three-dimensional optical scanning of a dental cast, occlusal bite, or bite tray impression. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014;43:1293-301.
  17. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, Finet J, Fillion-Robin JC, Pujol S, Bauer C, Jennings D, Fennessy F, Sonka M, Buatti J, Aylward S, Miller JV, Pieper S, Kikinis R. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30;1323-41.
  18. Azari A, Nikzad S. The evolution of rapid prototyping in dentistry: a review. Rapid Prototyp J 2009;15:216-25.
  19. Kuo RF, Chen SJ, Wong TY, Lu BC, Huang ZH. Digital morphology comparisons between models of conventional intraoral casting and digital rapid prototyping. Springer International Publishing, 2015;478-80.
  20. Commer P, Bourauel C, Maier K, Jager A. Construction and testing of a computer-based intraoral laser scanner for determining tooth positions. Med Eng Phys 2000;22:625-35.
  21. Lim MY, Lim SH. Comparison of model analysis measurements among plaster model, laser scan digital model, and cone beam CT image. Korean J Orthod 2009;39:6-17.
  22. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16: 297-305.
  23. Hung SH, Hung KS, Eick JD, Chappell RP. Marginal fit of porcelain-fused-to-metal and two types of ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:26-31.
  24. Weaver JD, Johnson GH, Bales DJ. Marginal adaptation of castable ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:747-53.
  25. Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W, Sorensen JA. Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:343-9.
  26. Belser UC, MacEntee MI, Richter WA. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:24-9.
  27. Proussaefs P. Crowns cemented on crown preparations lacking geometric resistance form. Part II: effect of cement. J Prosthodont 2004;13:36-41.
  28. Karlsson S. The fit of Procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:129-34.
  29. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11.
  30. Pompa G, Di Carlo S, De Angelis F, Cristalli MP, Annibali S. Comparison of Conventional Methods and Laser-Assisted Rapid Prototyping for Manufacturing Fixed Dental Prostheses: an in vitro study. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:318097.
  31. Givens EJ Jr, Neiva G, Yaman P, Dennison JB. Marginal adaptation and color stability of four provisional materials. J Prosthodont 2008;17:97-101.