Assessment of efficiency of two different intraoral scanners in determination of caries related volume loss
MetadataShow full item record
CitationŞeker M., Alkan E.,Korkut B., Ilgın C., Tağtekin D., Yanıkoğlu F. Assessment of efficiency of two different intraoral scanners in determination of caries related volume loss. Prevent from Caries Symposium lll, International, Online, Abst. No.37,13-14, November 2020.
Abstract Aim: Digital impressions taken with intraoral scanners are applications with proven validity. The data obtained with these systems can be virtually evaluated in three dimensions (3D). The aim of the study was to compare the cavity volume data obtained with two different intraoral scanners. Materials and Methods: The extracted lower molar teeth were examined according to the ICDAS II and divided into 4 groups(n=10). The teeth with ICDAS 3, 4, and 5 scores included only on the occlusal surface to provide standardization. The teeth with ICDAS 0 score were included in the study as the control group. All samples were scanned with Cerec Omnicam (Sirona,Bensheim,Germany) and iTero Element Flex (Align Techology,CA,USA), and initial images were saved as “.stl” format. The caries-infected tissues in teeth with ICDAS 3, 4, and 5 scores removed using a #14 diamond round bur for enamel and a #14 ceramic round bur for dentine (Cerabur,Comet,Germany) regarding the minimally invasive cavity principles. The final images of the teeth were taken with scanners, the data was loaded into Meshmixer 3.5 (Autodesk) 3D modeling software, and volumetric assessments were performed. The data were evaluated statistically with Mann Whitney U and Spearman’s correlation test. The level of significance was set at a=0.05. Results: Although there was a significant difference between the calculated initial volumes of two scanners for ICDAS 3 group (p=0.005), there was no significant difference for the other groups (p≥0.05). Regarding the comparison of final volumes, a significant difference was found for the ICDAS 5 group (p=0.036), whereas no significant difference was observed for the other groups between the scanners (p≥0.05). The percentage loss of volume between the two scanners was also similar (p≥0.05). Conclusion: The data obtained with Cerec Omnicam and iTero Element Flex are compatible with each other in terms of volumetric assessment and these devices can be used for calculating the cavity volumes. Intraoral scanners can be alternative systems to digital radiography for 3D examinations and calculations with the advantage of not requiring cross-sectional images.