12 December 2024 : Meta-Analysis
Reliability of Extraoral Scanners in Capturing 3D Geometry for Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review
Nasser M. Alqahtani ABCDEFG 1*DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946470
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e946470
Table 2 Characteristics of included studies in the systematic review.
| Author, year | Population | Intervention | Comparison | Results | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kirschneck et al, 2018 []26 | 20 Edentulous participants | 2 Extraoral scanners | Intraoral scanning procedure (Lythos, Ormco) | ICCs of the procedures were higher for local best-fit alignment than for global best-fit alignment | All procedures proved to be clinically equivalent for diagnostic purposes |
| Liu et al, 2019 []27 | 12 Edentulous participants | Custom-made static capturing system | Clinical measurement | Mean difference: 1.95±0.33 mm; ICC values above 0.5; inter examiner reliability coefficient above 0.909 | Clinically acceptable outcomes |
| Piedra-Cascón et al, 2020 []28 | 10 Participants | Dual-structured light facial scanner | Digital calipers | Average absolute deviations below 1 mm; ICC values consistently high | Clinically acceptable outcomes |
| Liu et al, 2021 []29 | 100 Sets of maxillary and mandibular dental plaster models | 3D handheld scanner | Electronic digital caliper | Excellent reliability (ICC >0.75) | Consistent results seen with |
| Ellakany et al, 2021 []30 | 10 Stone casts | 2 Extraoral scanners (S600 Arti Zirkonzahn, ZK and Ceramill map 600 Amann Girrbach, AG) | 2 Intraoral scanners (3Shape Trios 3, Dental Wings) | ICC between duplicate readings of the investigator was 0.993, indicating excellent intra-operator agreement | intraoral scanners and extraoral scanners, with similar accuracy except in canines, where extraoral scanners performed better |
| Pan et al, 2022 []31 | Mannequin head | RGB-D camera-based facial scanner (Bellus3D Arc7) | Direct anthropometry | ICC value for each scanner was 0.999; global deviation of 3D facial meshes was 0.37±0.01 mm | Clinically acceptable |
| Pereira et al, 2022 []32 | Edentulous mandibular model | Extraoral scanner | Intraoral scanner | 3D deviations minimal, with a maximum distance of 0.200 mm between files | Type and scanning methods used did not influence the 3D deviations |
| Srinivasan et al, 2024 []33 | 20 Fully dentate volunteers | Face scanner | Digital caliper | Mean differences ranged from 0.054±0.14 mm to 0.203±0.13 mm; ICC revealed an excellent reliability (ICC <0.90) | Vertical dimension occlusion can be measured accurately from face scans |
| ICC – intraclass correlation coefficient. | |||||