Optical profilometry versus intraoral (handheld) scanning.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference in maximum height loss values obtained from datasets based on optical profilometry and intraoral scanning. Additionally, two analysis applications were tested with respect to their correspondence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To obtain baseline data, the occlusal surface of a metal phantom tooth was scanned by optical profilometry [WLP] and an intraoral scanner [IOS]. Then, wear was simulated at two locations of the tooth, three times each ([wear1], [wear2], and [wear3]), and the surface was captured after each status of wear, applying [WLP] and [IOS]. The maximum vertical height loss was evaluated by comparing the 3D datasets of [WLP] and [IOS] at [wear1], [wear2], and [wear3] with the baseline data of [WLP] and [IOS], respectively. For this purpose, two commercially available applications, Geomagic Qualify and Oracheck, were used.

RESULTS

Apart from one outlier of 16% difference between the data obtained from [WLP] and [IOS], the maximum difference was 12.6%, which was equal to a metrical value of 15 µm. For the corresponding values, which were calculated with Geomagic Qualify and Oracheck at identical wear facets, maximum differences between +7% and -6.7% were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

According to this in vitro study, the wear measurement on the basis of [IOS] seems to be a cost-effective, quick, and easily applicable tool for clinical screening purposes, with an acceptable reliability. With respect to the minor variations between each other, the Geomagic Qualify and Oracheck measurement applications are equivalent.