Search

AimsTo determine whether personalised Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA) using an intra-oral-camera (IOC) combined with standard OHA as provided in general dental practice reduces plaque levels after 4 weeks more than the provision of standard OHA.Materials and Methods22 healthy adult participants diagnosed with gingivitis took part in this pilot parallel-designed, randomised, examiner-blind, 2x-treatment, study regarding their home-care oral hygiene habits and attitudes to oral health. An IOC-image was taken and plaque, gingival and bleeding scores were recorded. Test group participants received standard OHA with IOC-images to indicate areas for improvement, control group participants received standard OHA. Questionnaires and plaque, gingival and bleeding scores were repeated after 4 weeks. Plaque was scored from the IOC-images and scores compared to clinical plaque scores.ResultsLifestyle habits, attitudes to oral health, plaque (0.63vs0.61, control vs test) and bleeding scores (1.17vs0.96, control vs test) were similar at baseline. After 4-weeks, plaque scores improved more in test as compared to control group (39.4vs20.6%, pConclusionsUse of IOC further personalises the prevailing standard of oral hygiene advice and generates great patient engagement with pictorial reports to facilitate a more in-depth patient explanation of their gingival health, resulting in significant plaque reduction and improved gingival health compared to the standard OHA alone.

ObjectivesTo compare gingival inflammation scores obtained chairside using the non-invasive modified gingival index (MGI) with MGI scores from an intraoral scan (IOS) captured at the clinical visit but viewed 10 days later.MethodsSingle visit, anterior teeth, observational, proof of concept study in healthy adult participants with a spectrum of gingival inflammation. One investigator performed both clinical and intraoral scan MGI assessments, a second repeated the MGI evaluation from the IOS.Results23 participants aged 18–72 yielded data for 552 gingival sites. There was agreement at 90 % of sites comparing clinical with IOS MGI scores. The commonest disagreements were MGI grade 0 read as 1 and 2 read as 3, the highest single probability of error occurring where a clinical score of 0 was scored 1 from the IOS: 0.118 and 0.129 for examiners 1 and 2 respectively. The second most common probability of error occurred where an IOS score of 3 was scored clinically as 2: 0.089 and 0.097 for examiners 1 and 2 respectively. MGI scores from the scans were similar for both examiners (91 % agreement), with no discrepancies of greater than 1 scale point. There was very close agreement between clinical MGI and IOS colour/texture scores.ConclusionThis study conclusively demonstrated that the MGI score from the scanned image was very similar to the MGI scored clinically. This study confirms that a digital IOS accurately captures gingival contour images allowing a clinician to determine health or degree of gingival inflammation from it using MGI scores.Clinical Significance StatementThis study confirms that IOS images of teeth and soft tissues are sufficiently accurate to allow the clinical evaluation of health or inflammatory gingival status using non-invasive indices. IOS has great potential for efficient and accurate data capture, for general practice and research facilitating remote evaluation and data verification.

Introduction. Digital impressions in implant dentistry rely on many variables, and their accuracy, particularly in complete edentulous patients, is not well understood. Aim. The purpose of this literature review was to determine which factors may influence the accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry. Emphasized attention was given to the design of the intra-oral scan body (ISB) and scanning techniques. Materials and methods. A Medline, PubMed and EBSCO Host databases search, complemented by a hand search, was performed in order to select relevant reports regarding the appliance of digital impressions in implant dentistry. The search subject included but was not limited to accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry, digital scanning techniques, the design and material of the ISBs, and the depth and angulation of the implant. The related titles and abstracts were screened, and the remaining articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected for full-text readings. Results. The literature search conducted for this review initially resulted in 108 articles, among which only 21 articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. Studies were evaluated according to five subjects: accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry; the design and material of the intra-oral scan bodies; scanning technique; the influence of implants depth/angulations on the digital impression and accuracy of different intra-oral scanner devices. Conclusions. The accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry depends on several aspects. The depth/angulation of the implant, the experience of the operator, the intra-oral scanner used, and environmental conditions may influence the accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry. However, it seems that ISBs’ design and material, as well as scanning technique, have a major impact on the trueness and precision of digital impressions in implant dentistry. Future research is suggested for the better understanding of this subject, focusing on the optimization of the ISB design and scanning protocols.

Background: We compare the accuracy of new intraoral scanners (IOSs) in full-arch digital implant impressions. Methods: A master model with six scan bodies was milled in poly(methyl methacrylate), measured by using a coordinate measuring machine, and scanned 15 times with four IOSs: PrimeScan, Medit i500, Vatech EZ scan, and iTero. The software was developed to identify the position points on each scan body. The 3D position and distance analysis were performed. Results: The average and ± standard deviation of the 3D position analysis was 29 μm ± 6 μm for PrimeScan, 39 μm ± 6 μm for iTero, 48 μm ± 18 μm for Mediti500, and 118 μm ± 24 μm for Vatech EZ scan (p < 0.05). Conclusions: All IOSs are able to make a digital complete implant impression in vitro according to the average misfit value reported in literature (150 μm); however, the 3D distance analysis showed that only the Primescan and iTero presented negligible systematic error sources.

Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant axis’ spatial position and orientation by using laboratory scanner versus intra-oral scanner with three different scan abutments. Methods: A 3D model was printed with an internal hex implant analog in the place of teeth 35#. Three standard scan abutments were used: MIS (two-piece titanium), AB (two-piece PEEK and titanium base) and ZZ (one-piece PEEK). Each scan abutment was scanned 30 times by TRIOS E3 (laboratory scanner) and 30 times by Omnicam (intra-oral scanner). For each scan, an STL (stereolithography) file was created, and the spatial characterization of each scan abutment was measured in the X, Y, Z coordinates, and rotational and longitudinal angles. The comparison between all the scans was conducted by superimposition of the STL files, using a 3D software. A t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used. (p &lt, 0.05) Results: Only the MIS scan abutment showed no statistical difference in the X and Z axes. (p &lt, 0.05). All other scan abutments showed a statistical difference in all axes. The rotational angle of the AB scan abutment was twice the angle of the MIS and ZZ scan abutments. Conclusions: All three scan abutments showed a rotational deviation of the implant axis between the laboratory scanner and the intra-oral scanner. The AB scan abutment showed the greatest deviation (1.04 degrees) while the other two abutments showed deviations of about half a degree in relation to the laboratory scan abutment. There is a need for further studies which will examine the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the accuracy of the scan obtained.

The Dental CAD/CAM system has been in use for more than 30 years, and has been an indispensable tool for dental workflow. Before this practical system was in operation, it was necessary to develop computer technology in the handling of 3-dimensional data freely and to advance new dental materials. This trend will continue to expand in the future. Recently, optical impressions are taken instead of using impression materials against the background of great progress in sensor technology. Likewise, dental workflows that do not need plaster working models have become mainstream. In this paper, we outline the history and current trends of this technology, and describe prospects for the future.

Journal of The Dental Association of Thailand, 69, 4, 475-482

2017