Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of Band and Loop Type Space Maintainer on Intraoral Scanning Accuracy of an Adjacent Tooth

  • Ju Ri Ye (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Medical Center) ;
  • Yong Kwon Chae (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Medical Center) ;
  • Ko Eun Lee (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Medical Center) ;
  • Hyo-Seol Lee (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Medical Center) ;
  • Sung Chul Choi (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Medical Center) ;
  • Ok Hyung Nam (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kyung Hee University College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University Medical Center)
  • Received : 2023.04.28
  • Accepted : 2023.06.26
  • Published : 2023.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the presence of a space maintainer affects the accuracy of an intraoral scanner. Materials and Methods: The maxillary primary first molar typodont tooth was removed from the primary dentition typodont model and a band and loop type space maintainer was delivered. After the model was connected to a dental phantom, intraoral scan was performed using TRIOS 4 (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). The scan was repeated with the same technique without the space maintainer. Each scan was performed 10 times. All scan files into a GOM inspect 2018 software and evaluated the accuracy. The accuracy was evaluated on trueness and precision, and calculated using the root mean square value. Result: When there was a space maintainer in the oral cavity, the trueness value was 0.10±0.02 mm and the precision value was 0.15±0.03 mm. In the absence of the space maintainer, the trueness value was 0.12±0.03 mm and the precision value was 0.16±0.04 mm. There were no significant differences depending on the presence of a space maintainer (P>0.05). Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, the accuracy of the intraoral scanner was not influenced by the presence of space maintainer.

Keywords

References

  1. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-5.
  2. Jang KA, Heo SE, Kang HK, Lee SJ. A convergence study on the changes of awareness and preference according to the clinical application experience of digital intraoral scanners in dental hygienists. J Korea Converg Soc. 2018; 9: 135-40.
  3. Christopoulou I, Kaklamanos EG, Makrygiannakis MA, Bitsanis I, Tsolakis AI. Patient-reported experiences and preferences with intraoral scanners: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2022; 44: 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjab027
  4. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 10.
  5. Yilmaz H, Aydin MN. Digital versus conventional impression method in children: comfort, preference and time. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2019; 29: 728-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12566
  6. Revilla-Leon M, Kois DE, Kois JC. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: part 2-patient factors. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023; 35: 241-9.
  7. Revilla-Leon M, Kois DE, Kois JC. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: operator factors. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023; 35: 230-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12985
  8. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Culp A, Kessler R, Renne W. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020; 32: 204-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12528
  9. Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB, Gill DS. Space maintenance. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009; 19: 155-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2008.00951.x
  10. Fekonja A. Evaluation of the eruption of permanent teeth and their association with malocclusion. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022; 8: 836-42. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.544
  11. Choi H, Kim C, Lee D, Yang Y, Kim J. Measurement of maximum mouth opening in 2 to 6 year-old Korean children. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2015; 42: 242-8. https://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2015.42.3.242
  12. Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-9.
  13. Lee JB, Kim CC, Hahn SH, Lee SH. A morphometric study of the maxillary primary first molars using three-dimensional scanner. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2006; 33: 643-52.
  14. Pinho T, Rocha D, Ribeiro S, Monteiro F, Pascoal S, Azevedo R. Interceptive treatment with Invisalign® first in moderate and severe cases: a case series. Children (Basel). 2022; 9: 1176.
  15. Beretta M, Federici Canova F, Zaffarano L, Gianolio A. DOP Dentistry: digitally embracing orthodontics and paediatric dentistry. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2022; 23: 295-7.
  16. Khanna S, Rao D, Panwar S, Pawar BA, Ameen S. 3D printed band and loop space maintainer: a digital game changer in preventive orthodontics. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021; 45: 147-51. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4625-45.3.1
  17. Tokuc M, Yilmaz H. Comparison of fit accuracy between conventional and CAD/CAM-fabricated band-loop space maintainers. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2022; 32: 764-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12955
  18. ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 1: general principles and definitions [cited 2023 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-2:v1:en
  19. Son K, Lee KB. Effect of tooth types on the accuracy of dental 3D scanners: an in vitro study. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13: 1744.
  20. Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow--the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 2119-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0923-5
  21. Shim JS, Lee JS, Lee JY, Choi YJ, Shin SW, Ryu JJ. Effect of software version and parameter settings on the marginal and internal adaptation of crowns fabricated with the CAD/CAM system. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015; 23: 515-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150081
  22. Braian M, Wennerberg A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 129-36. e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.007
  23. Kaihara Y, Kihara T, Kakayama A, Amano H, Nikawa H, Kozai K. Accuracy of a non-contact 3D measuring system for dental model analysis. Pediatr Dent J. 2013; 23: 71-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdj.2013.04.001
  24. Camci H, Salmanpour F. Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020; 158: 759-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.03.022
  25. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021: 2673040.