BMC Oral Health (May 2023)

Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time

  • Ivett Róth,
  • Péter Hermann,
  • Viktória Vitai,
  • Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács,
  • Zoltán Géczi,
  • Judit Borbély

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02963-7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background The appearance of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in dental offices was an important milestones for the digital innovations in dentistry. Knowing the learning curve for intraoral scanning is crucial, because it can serve as a guideline for clinicians before buying a new IOS. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve required by dental students for intraoral scanning with the 3Shape Trios 4 IOS and the CEREC Primescan IOS, based on scanning time. Methods A total of 20 dental students with no previous experience in intraoral scanning participated in the present study. 10 students scanned with Trios 4® IOS (TRI) and 10 students took digital impressions with Primescan® IOS (CER). Every student created 15 digital impressions from patients. Prior to taking the impressions, theoretical and practical education was provided. The total scanning time included the upper and lower arches as well as bite registration, for which average values were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata package with a mixed-effects generalized least squares regression models. Results The average total scanning times were the following: TRI – 205 s for the 1st impression, 133.6 s for the 15th, CER – 289.8 s for the 1st impression, 147 s for the 15th. The model-based estimate of the difference between the two in case of TRI was 57.5 s, and in CER was 144.2 s which is a highly significant improvement in both cases (P < 0.0001). The slope of the scanning time vs. learning phase curve gradually approached flatness, and maintained a plateau: TRI – from the 11th measurement and CER – from the 14th measurement onward. Conclusions Given the limitations of the present study, we found difference between the learning curve of scanner types which are operate various principle of imaging. In case of the TRI fewer digital impressions (11 repeating) were sufficient to reach the average scanning time of an experienced user than using CER (14 repeating). Trial registration The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number: 184/2022).

Keywords