TY - JOUR
T1 - Scanning accuracy of bracket features and slot base angle in different bracket materials by four intraoral scanners
T2 - An in vitro study
AU - Shin, Seon Hee
AU - Yu, Hyung Seog
AU - Cha, Jung Yul
AU - Kwon, Jae Sung
AU - Hwang, Chung Ju
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/1/2
Y1 - 2021/1/2
N2 - The accurate expression of bracket prescription is important for successful orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital scan images of brackets produced by four intraoral scanners (IOSs) when scanning the surface of the dental model attached with different bracket materials. Brackets made from stainless steel, polycrystalline alumina, composite, and composite/stainless steel slot were considered, which have been scanned from four different IOSs (Primescan, Trios, CS3600, and i500). SEM images were used as references. Each bracket axis was set in the reference scan image, and the axis was set identically by superimposing with the IOS image, and then only the brackets were divided and analyzed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences. The difference between the manufacturer’s nominal torque and bracket slot base angle was 0.39 in SEM, 1.96 in Primescan, 2.04 in Trios, and 5.21 in CS3600 (p < 0.001). The parallelism, which is the difference between the upper and lower angles of the slot wall, was 0.48 in SEM, 7.00 in Primescan, 5.52 in Trios, 6.34 in CS3600, and 23.74 in i500 (p < 0.001). This study evaluated the accuracy of the bracket only, and it must be admitted that there is some error in recognizing slots through scanning in general.
AB - The accurate expression of bracket prescription is important for successful orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital scan images of brackets produced by four intraoral scanners (IOSs) when scanning the surface of the dental model attached with different bracket materials. Brackets made from stainless steel, polycrystalline alumina, composite, and composite/stainless steel slot were considered, which have been scanned from four different IOSs (Primescan, Trios, CS3600, and i500). SEM images were used as references. Each bracket axis was set in the reference scan image, and the axis was set identically by superimposing with the IOS image, and then only the brackets were divided and analyzed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences. The difference between the manufacturer’s nominal torque and bracket slot base angle was 0.39 in SEM, 1.96 in Primescan, 2.04 in Trios, and 5.21 in CS3600 (p < 0.001). The parallelism, which is the difference between the upper and lower angles of the slot wall, was 0.48 in SEM, 7.00 in Primescan, 5.52 in Trios, 6.34 in CS3600, and 23.74 in i500 (p < 0.001). This study evaluated the accuracy of the bracket only, and it must be admitted that there is some error in recognizing slots through scanning in general.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85099412494&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85099412494&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/ma14020365
DO - 10.3390/ma14020365
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85099412494
VL - 14
SP - 1
EP - 14
JO - Materials
JF - Materials
SN - 1996-1944
IS - 2
M1 - 365
ER -