J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2024 Aug;40(3):125-134. 10.14368/jdras.2024.40.3.125.

Accuracy of bite registration according to the buccal bite scan range of intra-oral scanner

• Kwon Ts
• Kim Dh
• Kim Ms
• Song Dj
• Song JH

• KMID: 2562756
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2024.40.3.125

Abstract

Purpose
The aim of this study was to determine which scan range would provide the most accurate bite registration when perform-ing a bite scan after scanning an upper and lower arch using an intraoral scanner.
Materials and Methods
The occlusal contact points were recorded using articulating paper for 30 adults, and the results of various ranges of buccal bite scan were compared based on this. Buccal bite scan of 5 ranges (1st premolar to 2nd premolar, 1st premolar to 1st molar, 1st premolar to 2nd molar, 2nd premolar to 1st molar, and canines to another side canine of the maxillary teeth) was performed, and then the buccal bite scan file was used in a CAD program to confirm the occlusal area in the scan file through data editing and alignment, leaving the buccal area of the teeth. Afterwards, the degree of agreement between the occlusal contact points obtained from the articulating paper and the occlusal area obtained from the scan file was compared, and statistical analysis was performed using the homoscedastic Ttest (α = 0.05).
Results
The alignment success and alignment failure rates among each group were 77.23% and 40.85% in canine to another side canine, 68.23% and 28.89% in bilateral first premolar to second premolar, 63.76% and 29.97% in bilateral first premolar to first molar, 61.31% and 32.04% in bilateral first premolar to second molar, 67.55% and 27.46% in second premolar to first molar. The results of the anterior scan of both canines showed higher alignment success and failure rates compared to the scan results of all maxillary posterior teeth. In the alignment success rate, statistical significance was not found depending on the scan range of the posterior teeth, but in comparing the results of the posterior teeth and both canines, statistical significance was observed except for the scan results of the second premolar to the first molar. There was no statistical significance in the alignment failure rate depend-ing on the scan range of the posterior teeth, and statistical significance was observed in the results of the posterior teeth and both canines.
Conclusion
When taking a buccal bite scan, in the case of scanning the anterior teeth, more occlusal area appear than when scanning the posterior teeth, and in the case of scanning the posterior teeth, there is no significant difference in the bite reg-istration depending on the scan range.

Keyword

articulating paper; intraoral scan; bite registration; maximal intercuspal position

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 (A) Maxilla dentition after biting articulating paper, (B) Red dot at occlusal contact point.

• 

  Fig. 2 Buccal bite scan range. (A) 1st premolar-2nd premolar, (B) 1st premolar- 1st molar, (C) 1st premolar-2nd molar, (D) 2nd premolar- 1st molar, (E) canine-canine.

• 

  Fig. 3 Data editing procedure. (A) Original bite scan data, (B) Bite scan data after editing, (C) Bite scan data on both sides after editing.

• 

  Fig. 4 Maxilla and mandible alignment procedure. (A) Bite scan aligned based on maxilla, (B) Mandible aligned based on bite scan, (C) Maxilla and mandible alignment.

• 

  Fig. 5 Amount of overlap between maxilla and mandible after alignment, define overlap area as alignment point.

• 

  Fig. 6 Comparison occlusal contact point and alignment point. (A) Red dot at occlusal contact point, (B) Amount of overlap between maxilla and mandible after alignment, (C) Overlap A and B and comparison.

• 

  Fig. 7 Occlusal contact point (O) and alignment point (A), OA when occlusal contact point is within alignment point, O when occlusal contact point is outside alignment point, A when there is no occlusal point within alignment point.

Reference

References

1. bin Irfan U, Aslam K, Nadim R. 2015; A review on CAD CAM in dentistry. J Pak Dent Assoc. 24:112–6.

2. Abdullah AO, Muhammed FK, Zheng B, Liu Y. 2018; An Overview of Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in Restorative Dentistry. J Dent Mater Tech. 7:1–10.

3. Choi HS, Moon JE, Kim SH. 2012; The application of CAD/CAM in dentistry. J Korean Dent Assoc. 50:110–7. DOI: 10.22974/jkda.2012.50.3.001.

4. Revilla-Leon M, Frazier K, da Costa JB, Kumar P, Duong ML, Khajotia S, Urquhart O. 2021; Intraoral scanners: An american dental association clinical evaluators panel survey. J Am Dent Assoc. 152:669–70. e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2021.05.018. PMID: 34325781.

5. Haidar ZS. Digital dentistry: Past, present, and future. DMHT. 2023(2); 1–16. DOI: 10.5772/dmht.17.

6. Angelone F, Ponsiglione AM, Ricciardi C, Cesarelli G, Sansone M, Amato F. 2023; Diagnostic applications of intraoral scanners: a systematic review. J Imaging. 9:134. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging9070134. PMID: 37504811. PMCID: PMC10381333.

7. Carneiro Pereira AL, Martins de Aquino LM, Carvalho Porto de Freitas RF, Soares Paiva Tôrres AC, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. 2019; CAD/CAM-fabricated removable partial dentures: a case report. Int J Comput Dent. 22:371–9. PMID: 31840145.

8. Wimmer T, Gallus K, Eichberger M, Stawarczyk B. 2016; Complete denture fabrication supported by CAD/CAM. J Prosthet Dent. 115:541–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.016. PMID: 26774323.

9. e Bertolini MdM, Kempen J, Lourenço EJV, de Moraes Telles D. 2014; The use of CAD/CAM technology to fabricate a custom ceramic implant abutment: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 111:362–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.016. PMID: 24433839.

10. Yadav S, Narayan AI, Choudhry A, Balakrishnan D. 2017; CAD/CAM-assisted auricular prosthesis fabrication for a quick, precise, and more retentive outcome: a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 26:616–21. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12589. PMID: 28118503.

11. Ting-shu S, Jian S. 2015; Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 24:313–21. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12218. PMID: 25220390.

12. Ender A, Mehl A. 2011; Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions - an in-vitro study. Int J Comput. 14:11–21. PMID: 21657122.

13. Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. 2016; Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 38:429–34. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjw033. PMID: 27266879.

14. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. 2014; Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 18:1687–94. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y. PMID: 24240949.

15. Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. 2014; The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc. 145:542–51. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.23. PMID: 24878708.

16. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. 2014; Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 14:10. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10. PMID: 24479892. PMCID: PMC3913616.

17. Shopova D, Bakova D, Yordanova S, Yordanova M, Uzunov T. 2023; Digital Occlusion Analysis after Orthodontic Treatment: Capabilities of the Intraoral Scanner and T-Scan Novus System. Appl Sci. 13:4335. DOI: 10.3390/app13074335.

18. Park JM. 2016; Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont. 8:354–62. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.354. PMID: 27826385. PMCID: PMC5099127.

19. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. 2017; Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 118:36–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024. PMID: 28024822.

20. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. 2016; A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod. 46:3–12. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3. PMID: 26877977. PMCID: PMC4751299.

21. Ender A, Mehl A. 2013; Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 16:11–21. PMID: 23641661.

22. Park JM, Park EJ, Heo SJ. 2014; Suitable scanning procedures for various prosthodontic treatments and the utilization of intraoral scanner. J Korean Dent Assoc. 52:354–62. DOI: 10.22974/jkda.2014.52.6.003.

23. Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. 2016; Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 47:343–9. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a35524. PMID: 26824085.

24. Park JM, Jeon J, Heo SJ. 2018; Accuracy comparison of buccal bite scans by five intra-oral scanners. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 34:17–31. DOI: 10.14368/jdras.2018.34.1.17.

25. Li L, Chen H, Wang Y, Sun Y. 2021; Construction of virtual intercuspal occlusion: Considering tooth displacement. J Oral Rehabil. 48:701–10. DOI: 10.1111/joor.13153. PMID: 33486815.

26. Jeong Y, Shim JS, Kim JH, Kim JE, Lee H. 2022; Accuracy of Bite Registration Using Intraoral Scanner Based on Data Trimming Strategy for Fremitus Teeth. J Korean Dent Sci. 15:61–7.

27. Miura H, Hasegawa S, Okada D, Ishihara H. 1998; The measurement of physiological tooth displacement in function. J Med Dent Sci. 45:103–15. PMID: 11186196.

28. Brizuela-Velasco A, Álvarez-Arenal Á, Ellakuria-Echevarria J, Río-Highsmith Jd, Santamaría-Arrieta G, Martín-Bianco N. 2015; Influence of Articulating Paper Thickness on Occlusal Contacts Registration: A Preliminary Report. Int J Prosthodont. 28:360–2. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4112. PMID: 26218017.