Study on Effect of Locking Surface Patterns on Accuracy of Full-arch Scanning

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2025.05.008

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To explore the effect of different locking surface patterns on the accuracy (including trueness and precision) of full-arch scanning. Methods: The design and 3D printing of the experimental models were accomplished using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) techniques. Then, different surface locking patterns (P1: no locking pattern; P2: locking 1/4 arch surface; P3: locking 1/2 arch surface, and P4: locking 3/4 arch surface) were used to sequentially collect intraoral optical scanning data (n=10) of the standard resin dental models. These data were compared with the data obtained by the dental laboratory scanner to analyze the differences in the accuracy of the impressions obtained. Results: In the evaluation of trueness and precision, the Δd2-Δd4 values measured using the P2 were significantly greater than those of the other groups (P<0.05). Additionally, both trueness and precision assessments of the Δd3 and Δd4 values measured in the scans of each locking surface pattern were higher for the mandible compared to the maxilla (P<0.05). Conclusion: Different surface locking patterns significantly influenced the accuracy of full-arch scanning, with relatively high scanning accuracy achieved when the locking surface was positioned on the occlusal surface of the posterior region.

Key words: accuracy, digital impression, intraoral scanner, locking surface

JI Jianhua, ZHA Xuzhe, WEI Luming, GUO Huiying, YUAN Changyong, WANG Penglai. Study on Effect of Locking Surface Patterns on Accuracy of Full-arch Scanning[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2025, 41(5): 400-405.

References

[1] Cecilia G, Lorenzo F, Alessandro V, et al. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence [J]. Eur J Orthod, 2016, 38(4): 422-428.
[2] Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review [J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2020, 64(2): 109-113.
[3] Siqueira R, Galli M, Chen ZZ, et al. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(12): 6517-6531.
[4] Yang ST, Dong B, Zhang QQ, et al. An indirect digital technique to transfer 3D printed casts to a mechanical articulator with individual sagittal condylar inclination settings using CBCT and intraoral scans [J]. J Prosthodont, 2022, 31 (9): 822-827.
[5] May J, Watson J. Restoration of a mandibular incisor with a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing fabricated anterior onlay [J]. Oper Dent, 2019, 44(2): 109-113.
[6] Camc H, Salmanpour F. Effect of saliva isolation and intraoral light levels on performance of intraoral scanners [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2020, 158(5): 759-766.
[7] Chen YM, Zhai ZH, Li HF, et al. Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: An in vitro study [J]. J Prosthodont, 2022, 31(1): 59-64.
[8] Song J, Kim M. Accuracy on scanned images of full arch models with orthodontic brackets by various intraoral scanners in the presence of artificial saliva [J]. Biomed Res Int, 2020, 2020: 2920804.
[9] Resende CCD, Barbosa TAQ, Moura GF, et al. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 125(2): 294-299.
[10] Revilla-León M, Quesada-Olmo N, Gómez-Polo M, et al. Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study [J]. J Dent, 2021, 115: 103851.
[11] Guo JW, Lu Y, Li RL, et al. Influence of repeated cut-off and rescanning on the trueness of the intraoral digital scans [J]. J Dent, 2024, 150: 105153.
[12] Borbola D, Mikolicz A, Romanszky L, et al. Complete-arch accuracy of seven intraoral scanners measured by the virtual-fit method [J]. J Dent, 2024, 149: 105281.
[13] Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, et al. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2022, 128(5): 1017-1023.
[14] Nagy Z, Simon B, Mennito A, et al. Comparing the trueness of seven intraoral scanners and a physical impression on dentate human maxilla by a novel method [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2020, 20(1): 97.
[15] 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]. J Prosthet Dent, 2019, 122(2): 129-136.
[16] Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, et al. Improving intraoral implant scanning with a novel auxiliary device: An in-vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021, 32(12): 1466-1473.
[17] Liu CT, Chen JH, Du JK, et al. Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible [J]. J Dent Sci, 2024, 19(1): 466-472.
[18] Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression [J]. J Healthc Eng, 2017, 2017:8427595.
[19] 刘翠,张敏,蒋一,等.口内数字印模的准确性应用探讨[J].解放军医学院学报,2023,44(3):307-311.
[20] Chen YM, Zhai ZH, Watanabe S, et al. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners [J]. J Dent, 2022, 124: 104220.
[21] Revilla-León M, Gómez-Polo M, Barmak AB, et al. Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2024, 18: S0022-3913.