Augmented-reality-assisted intraoral scanning: A proof-of-concept study.

PURPOSE

The aims of the present study were (a) to compare the scanning time and image count to complete optical scans of a typodont between augmented-reality-assisted intraoral scanning (ARIOS) and intraoral scanning (IOS); (b) to compare the accuracy of the digital casts derived from ARIOS and IOS; (c) to compare participant-related outcomes between ARIOS and IOS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multi-session within-subject experiment was conducted to compare ARIOS and IOS. Thirty-one dental students participated in the study. Following a trial session, each participant obtained optical scans under ARIOS and IOS conditions. The time required to complete the scan, and the number of images taken were recorded. Participant feedback was collected using entry, exit, and NASA-Task Load Index (TLX) surveys. The accuracy of the digital casts derived from the optical scans was measured in root mean square error (RMSE).

RESULTS

The present study found a 6.8% increase in preference for ARIOS from entry to exit survey. Slightly more participants favored the ARIOS setup compared to IOS; 54.8% of participants favored ARIOS, 9.7% were indifferent, and 35.5% favored IOS. NASA-TLX subscale ratings were higher for IOS in general apart from mental demand. The accuracy of the digital casts between ARIOS and IOS was comparable in RMSE.

CONCLUSION

ARIOS was advantageous compared to IOS in ergonomics, improved scanner tracking, and ease of scanner orientation. However additional trials, increased field of view, and better superimposition of scanning status to the target site were improvements desired by the study participants.