Can intraoral scanners scan impressions better than desktop scanners + other qs

J

JJC

New Member
Full Member
I know it may seem odd to use an intraoral scanner to scan impressions but I do deal with a lot of full arch impressions. For impressions with deep cavitations and crowding, it is difficult for the scanner to capture accurately, leaving large voids on the digital scans. So I am wonder if I use an intraoral scanner to manually scan the full arch impressions and trying to angle in a way to capture the deep areas, would it scan better? Is there such a thing?

If not, then how can we maximize the ability of the scanner to capture those deep areas? How effective is it to cut the excess impression material at the vestibule and spraying powders? What else can we do?

I am thinking of buying a scanner mainly for fabricating clear aligners.
With popular scanners out there, like 3Shape, Meditt, DOF, etc, which scanner is especially great for impression scanning for the purpose of creating clear aligners?

Can the scanning software that comes with the scanners accurately fill in the voids? Or do I have to use exocad? I already have my ortho designing software but it doesn't fill in voids. Because I mainly use this set up for aligners, I am thinking whether I really need to spend the extra money for exocad.

Any advice is much appreciated! Thank you!
 
CoolHandLuke

CoolHandLuke

40% titanium
Staff member
Full Member
75% of impressions are just not suitable for scanning. they must be poured.

it is harder to scan a hole than it is to turn a hole into a positive, and scan it. so just pour the impressions and don't bother scanning impressions. scan the mouth, get an IOS for that if you must. but don't scan impressions. its not worth the headaches.
 
2thm8kr

2thm8kr

Beanosavedmysociallife
Full Member
Not saying it is impossible, but i have used several IO scanners to try and get a reliable digital model from an impression. Just not consistent or predicable enough for me to put into everyday use for C & B.

For ortho aligners you maybe(?),but IO scanners stitch small photos together to make a panoramic image that may not be accurate enough for every case.

If you have access to an IOS to borrow or can test one for a time from a reseller would be better than gambling with the cost of one. All the effort with aligners is upfront on most cases. If the data is not accurate from the onset, you know everything else is wasted time. & $
 
Labwa

Labwa

Active Member
Full Member
We have been beta testing DS 2019 which gives you a step to scan a stone die and merge it with the scanned impression.
Model builder does some weird stuff but its working well about 60 percent of the time every time.
 
J

JJC

New Member
Full Member
Not saying it is impossible, but i have used several IO scanners to try and get a reliable digital model from an impression. Just not consistent or predicable enough for me to put into everyday use for C & B.

For ortho aligners you maybe(?),but IO scanners stitch small photos together to make a panoramic image that may not be accurate enough for every case.

If you have access to an IOS to borrow or can test one for a time from a reseller would be better than gambling with the cost of one. All the effort with aligners is upfront on most cases. If the data is not accurate from the onset, you know everything else is wasted time. & $
May I ask what IOS have you tried?
I am thinking of trying the medit i500 cuz it lets you merge impressions and stone die together.
 
2thm8kr

2thm8kr

Beanosavedmysociallife
Full Member
May I ask what IOS have you tried?
I am thinking of trying the medit i500 cuz it lets you merge impressions and stone die together.
Trios, iTero, E4D HD, Planscan, Emerald, COS
 
J

JJC

New Member
Full Member
Trios, iTero, E4D HD, Planscan, Emerald, COS
Wow those are nice scanners.....what exactly are the problems with them? There are distortions? Did you try the function of merging impressions and die stone?
Thanks
 
2thm8kr

2thm8kr

Beanosavedmysociallife
Full Member
Some had arch discrepancies. Some were not able to get a complete scan of the arch height due to focal length. Undercuts were a problem with mist of them. If I had a stone model to merge I would just scan that with desktop scanner and be done.
 
CoolHandLuke

CoolHandLuke

40% titanium
Staff member
Full Member
May I ask what IOS have you tried?
I am thinking of trying the medit i500 cuz it lets you merge impressions and stone die together.
I500 is a good little unit, and the software that runs it can be quite smart; but the thing i love best about it is that you will instantly see the distortions in the scan when you do not have good technique. Sometimes its smart enough to correct these mis scans on its own, but not often enough.
 
Affinity

Affinity

Well-Known Member
Full Member
The new DOF IOS should be out next year or so and I hear its designed to scan intraoral and stone models.
 
Reactions: JMN
J

JJC

New Member
Full Member
I500 is a good little unit, and the software that runs it can be quite smart; but the thing i love best about it is that you will instantly see the distortions in the scan when you do not have good technique. Sometimes its smart enough to correct these mis scans on its own, but not often enough.
Did u use the i500 to scan impressions or did u use it to scan intraorally? How do u find it when u use it to scan impressions?
 
CoolHandLuke

CoolHandLuke

40% titanium
Staff member
Full Member
I used it to qc models. Scanned models then did a GOM inspection to see deviaion and verify accuracy of technique.

Woth IOS it isn't about the accuracy of the scanner that you have to go by. The accuracy of the scanner doesn't matter as much as your Technique because the technique if it is wrong will 100% of the time produce a model that is inaccurate no matter how accurate the scanners numbers may be. You can have a scanner accurate to under 10 microns but if your Technique is flawed then that scan will be deviant across the arch instead of at a local site. This means the technique is more important than the numbers of accuracy you can make any scanner work even something with 50 microns accuracy because the technique is such is that the scan does not deviate across the arch. For sure this model will not be accurate enough for a bar, but this scan will be useful and accurate for everything even crown and Bridge. Dedicated laser model scanners do not encounter this same phenomenon because their technique is always the same. A uses a laser and a sequence of rotation in order to create a model. There is no sequence of rotation to apply to an intraoral scan so technique becomes freehand and freehand I can prove to always produce a deviant model.
 
Reactions: JMN
Guest Room
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • Chat Bot:
    Room has been pruned!
    Chat Bot: Room has been pruned!
    Top Bottom