Comparison of Direct and Indirect Scanners in Digital Impression Systems: A Narrative Review
Abstract
Introduction: Digital impression tools are an alternative to old impression materials and have developed significantly in recent years. These systems generally include two types of scanners: direct and indirect scanners. This article aimed to review and compare these two types of scanners.
Description: Data were collected by reviewing a total of forty articles on dimensional accuracy, a combination of scans, and internal and marginal gaps for comparison of direct and indirect scanners. These articles were retrieved from PubMed and Scopus and published between 2010 and 2020 using the following keywords: intraoral scanner, lab scanner, marginal gap, internal gap, and accuracy rate.
Results: Direct scanners had a lower amount of marginal and internal gaps, while indirect scanners had a lower deviation in more prepared teeth in the half and full arch due to the ability of stitching scans. Regarding the dimensional accuracy, the results of studies were inconsistent, but clinical studies pointed to the superiority of indirect scanners. The type of scanner suggested being selected depending on conditions such as the size of area, time, convenience of procedure, etc. The clinical results of both types of scanners were clinically acceptable.
Keywords: Dental marginal adaptation, Dental internal adaptation, Dental impression technique.
References
1. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015; 46(1): 9-17.
2. Kravitz ND, Groth C, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48(6): 337-47.
3. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: Current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009; 28(1): 44-56.
4. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014; 7(3): 57-70.
5. Gherlone E, Cappare P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impressions for "All-on-Four" restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31(2): 324-30.
6. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14(1): 1-16.
7. Porter JL, Carrico CK, Lindauer SJ, Tufekci E. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation. J Orthod 2018; 45(4): 275-82.
8. Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B, et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2016; 24(1): 85-94.
9. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont 2018; 27(1): 35-41.
10. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsumura H. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci 2018; 60(1): 1-7.
11. Euan R, Figueras-Alvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(2): 155-62.
12. Malaguti G, Rossi R, Marziali B, Esposito A, Bruno G, Dariol C, et al. In vitro evaluation of prosthodontic impression on natural dentition: a comparison between traditional and digital techniques. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2016; 9(Suppl 1/2016 to N 4/2016): 21-7.
13. Pedroche LO, Bernardes SR, Leao MP, Kintopp CC, Correr GM, Ornaghi BP, et al. Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30(1): e113.
14. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(7): 1759-64.
15. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010; 38(7): 553-9.
16. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20(4): 799-806.
17. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18(2): 515-23.
18. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont 2017; 26(7): 581-6.
19. Tabesh R, Dudley J. A Comparison of marginal gaps of all-ceramic crowns constructed from scanned impressions and models. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31(1): 71-3.
20. Aranda YE, Cantarell JMA, Minarro AA. Comparison of the marginal fit of milled yttrium stabilized zirconium dioxide crowns obtained by scanning silicone impressions and by scanning stone replicas. J Adv Prosthodont 2018; 10(3): 236-44.
21. Lee K-H, Yeo I-S, Wu BM, Yang J-H, Han J-S, Kim S-H, et al. Effects of computer-aided manufacturing technology on precision of clinical metal-free restorations. BioMed research international. 2015;2015.
22. Baig MR, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104(4): 216-27.
23. Re D, Cerutti F, Augusti G, Cerutti A, Augusti D. Comparison of marginal fit of Lava CAD/CAM crown-copings with two finish lines. Int J Esthet Dent 2014; 9(3): 426-35.
24. Kim MW, Kim JY, Shim JS, Kim S. Effect of the number of splinted abutments on the accuracy of zirconia copings. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120(5): 790.
25. Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: A double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20(2): 291-300.
26. Arezoobakhsh A, Shayegh SS, Jamali GA, Hakimaneh SMR. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123(1): 105-12.
27. Rai R, Kumar SA, Prabhu R, Govindan RT, Tanveer FM. Evaluation of marginal and internal gaps of metal ceramic crowns obtained from conventional impressions and casting techniques with those obtained from digital techniques. Indian J Dent Res 2017; 28(3): 291-7.
28. Praca L, Pekam FC, Rego RO, Radermacher K, Wolfart S, Marotti J. Accuracy of single crowns fabricated from ultrasound digital impressions. Dent Mater 2018; 34(11): e280-8.
29. Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21(5): 1445-55.
30. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018; 69: 110-8.
31. Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118(3): 392-9.
32. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144(3): 471-8.
33. Keul C, Guth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24(2): 735-45.
34. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111(3): 186-94.
35. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115(3): 313-20.
36. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015; 59(4): 236-42.
37. Vecsei B, Joos-Kovacs G, Borbely J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61(2): 177-84.
38. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(4): 1201-8.
39. Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18(1): 117.
40. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131(3): 107-11.
2. Kravitz ND, Groth C, Jones PE, Graham JW, Redmond WR. Intraoral digital scanners. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48(6): 337-47.
3. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: Current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 2009; 28(1): 44-56.
4. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM chairside system. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2014; 7(3): 57-70.
5. Gherlone E, Cappare P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impressions for "All-on-Four" restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31(2): 324-30.
6. Fleming PS, Marinho V, Johal A. Orthodontic measurements on digital study models compared with plaster models: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14(1): 1-16.
7. Porter JL, Carrico CK, Lindauer SJ, Tufekci E. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral scanners on the accuracy of digital model articulation. J Orthod 2018; 45(4): 275-82.
8. Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B, et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2016; 24(1): 85-94.
9. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont 2018; 27(1): 35-41.
10. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsumura H. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci 2018; 60(1): 1-7.
11. Euan R, Figueras-Alvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(2): 155-62.
12. Malaguti G, Rossi R, Marziali B, Esposito A, Bruno G, Dariol C, et al. In vitro evaluation of prosthodontic impression on natural dentition: a comparison between traditional and digital techniques. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2016; 9(Suppl 1/2016 to N 4/2016): 21-7.
13. Pedroche LO, Bernardes SR, Leao MP, Kintopp CC, Correr GM, Ornaghi BP, et al. Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods. Braz Oral Res 2016; 30(1): e113.
14. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(7): 1759-64.
15. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010; 38(7): 553-9.
16. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20(4): 799-806.
17. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18(2): 515-23.
18. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont 2017; 26(7): 581-6.
19. Tabesh R, Dudley J. A Comparison of marginal gaps of all-ceramic crowns constructed from scanned impressions and models. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31(1): 71-3.
20. Aranda YE, Cantarell JMA, Minarro AA. Comparison of the marginal fit of milled yttrium stabilized zirconium dioxide crowns obtained by scanning silicone impressions and by scanning stone replicas. J Adv Prosthodont 2018; 10(3): 236-44.
21. Lee K-H, Yeo I-S, Wu BM, Yang J-H, Han J-S, Kim S-H, et al. Effects of computer-aided manufacturing technology on precision of clinical metal-free restorations. BioMed research international. 2015;2015.
22. Baig MR, Tan KB, Nicholls JI. Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 104(4): 216-27.
23. Re D, Cerutti F, Augusti G, Cerutti A, Augusti D. Comparison of marginal fit of Lava CAD/CAM crown-copings with two finish lines. Int J Esthet Dent 2014; 9(3): 426-35.
24. Kim MW, Kim JY, Shim JS, Kim S. Effect of the number of splinted abutments on the accuracy of zirconia copings. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 120(5): 790.
25. Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: A double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2016; 20(2): 291-300.
26. Arezoobakhsh A, Shayegh SS, Jamali GA, Hakimaneh SMR. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123(1): 105-12.
27. Rai R, Kumar SA, Prabhu R, Govindan RT, Tanveer FM. Evaluation of marginal and internal gaps of metal ceramic crowns obtained from conventional impressions and casting techniques with those obtained from digital techniques. Indian J Dent Res 2017; 28(3): 291-7.
28. Praca L, Pekam FC, Rego RO, Radermacher K, Wolfart S, Marotti J. Accuracy of single crowns fabricated from ultrasound digital impressions. Dent Mater 2018; 34(11): e280-8.
29. Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 2017; 21(5): 1445-55.
30. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018; 69: 110-8.
31. Carbajal Mejia JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118(3): 392-9.
32. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144(3): 471-8.
33. Keul C, Guth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24(2): 735-45.
34. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111(3): 186-94.
35. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115(3): 313-20.
36. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015; 59(4): 236-42.
37. Vecsei B, Joos-Kovacs G, Borbely J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61(2): 177-84.
38. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17(4): 1201-8.
39. Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health 2018; 18(1): 117.
40. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131(3): 107-11.
Published
2021-06-27
How to Cite
1.
مهسا عباسیMA, بهناز عبادیانBE, نگین امینیان پورNA. Comparison of Direct and Indirect Scanners in Digital Impression Systems: A Narrative Review. Journal of Isfahan Dental School [Internet]. 27Jun.2021 [cited 3Jul.2024];:206-15. Available from: https://jids.journalonweb.ir/index.php/jids/article/view/1805
Section
Review Articles
Based on the obtained author agreement upon submission, “Journal of Isfahan Dental School” is the copyright owner of the published material. However, this is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.
Article evaluation process:
- The article assessment will be started after being submitted on the journal site and will be sent to the reviewers for scientific evaluation after receiving the submission fee and if the structural principles are observed. The results of the judging will be reviewed by the Writers' Council and, if necessary, amendments will be sent to the responsible author. After final correction and approval, the articles are published in the journal in the order of the article approval date.
- Clinical trial articles must be previously registered on the site (www.IRCT.ir) and their registration number must be mentioned at the beginning of the Materials and Methods.
- Case report articles must have a consent letter and a code of ethics.
- The journal has the right to accept or reject the article and also reserves the right to scientific and literary editing and, if necessary, summarizing the article. After submitting the article, all rights to it belong to the magazine.
- The journal will not be liable for litigation between authors as well as the correctness of the academic rank or affiliation of the authors. Also, the accuracy of the contents of the article is the responsibility of all the author (s).
- After the article enters the final stage (References check), it is not possible for the author (s) to cancel the publication of the article.
- After the Proof version is approved by the responsible author, it is not possible to change the number or order of the authors of the article.
Address: Journal of Isfahan Dental School, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezar Jerib St. Isfahan, IRAN.
Postal Code: 81746-72461
Phone: 031-37925523
Fax: 031-36687080
Email: jids@dnt.mui.ac.ir
URL: http://jids.journalonweb.ir/index.php/jids
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
