There have been various developments in intraoral 3D scanning technology. This study is aimed at investigating the accuracy of 10 scanners developed from 2015 to 2020. A maxillary dental model with reference points was printed from Form 2 (FormLabs, Somerville, MA, USA). The model was scanned 5 times with each intraoral scanner (IOS); Trios 3 (normal and high‐resolution mode); Trios 4 (normal and high‐resolution mode) (3Shape Trios A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark); iTero Element, iTero 2, and iTero 5D Element (Align Technologies, San Jose, California, USA); Dental Wings (Dental Wings, Montreal QC, Canada); Panda 2 (Pengtum Technologies, Shanghai, China); Medit i500 (Medit Corp. Seoul, South Korea); Planmeca Emerald™ (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland); and Aoralscan (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China). After the scan, the 3D scanned stereolithography files were created. The various distances were measured five times in X, Y, Z, and XY axes of various scans and with a vernier caliper (control) and from the Rhinoceros software. The data were analyzed using SPSS 18. Test for the normality of the various measurement data were done using Kolmogorov‐Smirnov test. The trueness and precision of the measurements were compared among the various scans using the Kruskal‐Wallis test. The significance was considered at P < 0.05. The trueness of the intraoral scans was analyzed by comparing the measurements from the control. Precision was tested through the measurements of repeated scans. It showed that more the distance is less the accuracy for all scanners. In all studied scanners, the trueness varied but precision was favorably similar. Diagonal scanning showed less accuracy for all the scanners. Hence, when scanning the full arch, the dentist needs to take more caution and good scan pattern. Trios series showed the best scan results compared to other scanners.

Face scanners promise wide applications in medicine and dentistry, including facial recognition, capturing facial emotions, facial cosmetic planning and surgery, and maxillofacial rehabilitation. Higher accuracy improves the quality of the data recorded from the face scanner, which ultimately, will improve the outcome. Although there are various face scanners available on the market, there is no evidence of a suitable face scanner for practical applications. The aim of this in vitro study was to analyze the face scans obtained from four scanners; EinScan Pro (EP), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (EP+) (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), iPhone X (IPX) (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA), and to compare scans obtained from various scanners with the control (measured from Vernier caliper). This should help to identify the appropriate scanner for face scanning. A master face model was created and printed from polylactic acid using the resolution of 200 microns on x, y, and z axes and designed in Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The face models were 3D scanned with four scanners, five times, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations; EinScan Pro (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China), EinScan Pro 2X Plus (Shining 3D Tech. Co., Ltd. Hangzhou, China) using Shining Software, iPhone X (Apple Store, Cupertino, CA, USA) using Bellus3D Face Application (Bellus3D, version 1.6.2, Bellus3D, Inc. Campbell, CA, USA), and Planmeca ProMax 3D Mid (PM) (Planmeca USA, Inc. IL, USA). Scan data files were saved as stereolithography (STL) files for the measurements. From the STL files, digital face models are created in the computer using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). Various measurements were measured five times from the reference points in three axes (x, y, and z) using a digital Vernier caliper (VC) (Mitutoyo 150 mm Digital Caliper, Mitutoyo Co., Kanagawa, Japan), and the mean was calculated, which was used as the control. Measurements were measured on the digital face models of EP, EP+, IPX, and PM using Rhinoceros 3D modeling software (Rhino, Robert McNeel and Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The descriptive statistics were done from SPSS version 20 (IBM Company, Chicago, USA). One-way ANOVA with post hoc using Scheffe was done to analyze the differences between the control and the scans (EP, EP+, IPX, and PM). The significance level was set at p = 0.05. EP+ showed the highest accuracy. EP showed medium accuracy and some lesser accuracy (accurate until 10 mm of length), but IPX and PM showed the least accuracy. EP+ showed accuracy in measuring the 2 mm of depth (diameter 6 mm). All other scanners (EP, IPX, and PM) showed less accuracy in measuring depth. Finally, the accuracy of an optical scan is dependent on the technology used by each scanner. It is recommended to use EP+ for face scanning.

There are various scanners available in dental practice with various accuracies. The aim of this study was to compare the 3D capturing accuracy of scans obtained from Trios 3 and Dental Wings scanner. A reference mandibular model was printed from FormLab with reference points in three axes (X, Y, and XY and Z). The printed model was scanned 5 times with 3 scans: normal scan by Trios 3 (Trios 3A), high-resolution scan by Trios 3 (Trios 3B), and normal scan by Dental Wings. After scan, the stereolithography (stl) files were generated. Then, the measurements were made from the computer software using Rhinoceros 3D (Rhino, Robert McNeel & Associates for Windows, Washington DC, USA). The measurements made with digital caliper were taken as control. Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA with post hoc using Sheffe (P<0.01). Trios 3 presented higher accuracy than Dental Wings and high resolution showed better results. The Dental Wings showed less accuracy at the measurements >50 mm of length and >30 mm in width. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) of control with the Trios 3A and Trios 3B. Similarly, for the measurements in Z-axis, there was no significant difference of control with each scan (Trios 3A, Trios 3B, and Dental Wings). Accuracy of the scan is affected by the length of the scanning area and scanning pattern. It is less recommended to Dental Wings scan >3-unit prosthesis and that crosses the midline.

Objective This article aimed to study the effect of different concentrations of nano zinc oxide particles on the color change of MDX4–4210 facial silicone elastomer after artificial aging. Materials and Methods Silicone specimens (N = 150) were fabricated by incorporating intrinsic pigments and divided into three groups—white, yellow, and red, each group consisting of 50 specimens (n = 50). In each color, specimens were subdivided into five subgroups according to the quantity of zinc oxide nanoparticles (0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0% weight), where the 0% weight served as the control in each group. All specimens were then subjected to artificial aging using an accelerated aging machine chamber for 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours. L*a*b* values of specimens were noted after a different aging period by a spectrophotometer and ∆E* was calculated. Statistical Analysis Two-way repeated analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done to examine the effects under test conditions (concentration and aging time) of each color group. Then color, concentration, and the aging period were subjected to three-way repeated ANOVA to investigate the effects of different colors and concentrations on ∆E*. Bonferroni’s test was performed to identify differences between groups. The significant level was at p = 0.05. Results The control group showed significantly higher ∆E* values than the test groups. The 1.5% test group showed significantly lower ∆E* compared with the others. The 0.5 to 2.0% of nano zinc oxide significantly decreased the color change of the silicone elastomer (p < 0.05), but there were no significant differences among groups. Conclusions Incorporation of 1.5% of nano zinc oxide can improve the color stability of silicone prosthesis (MDX4–4210).

This study developed a new skin-deproteinized natural rubber latex (DNRL) silicone adhesive for adhering to silicone prostheses and compared the properties with a commercial Daro-Hydrobond adhesive. The new DNRL skin adhesive formulation was made from non-vulcanized natural rubber-based adhesives consisting of DNRL, 20% polyvinyl alcohol, cumarone resin, 2% methylcellulose, and Wingstay L. The peel bond strength of the adhesives was tested using a 90-degree peel test. Biocompatibility was accessed using in vitro keratinocyte cell viability. Animals (rabbits) and humans were tested for skin irritation tests. Results were analyzed using SPSS Version 24 and compared between the two adhesives. The peel bond strength of the new DNRL skin adhesive was 103.61 ± 23.18 N/m whereas that of the Daro-hydrobond adhesive was 131.52 ± 21.72 N/m. There was no significant difference (p>0.05) between the peel bond strengths of the two test adhesives. Cell proliferation under the DNRL skin adhesive-soaked medium showed higher cell viability than the positive control (p<0.05). The DNRL skin adhesive produced moderate erythema and edema on rabbit skins, however, the skin lesions recovered within 14 days. Two volunteers showed mild irritation at the first hour of the contact which was reduced within an hour without any therapy. The patient satisfaction with the DNRL skin adhesive ranged from slightly satisfied to completely satisfied. The new DNRL skin adhesive showed comparable peel bond strength and patient satisfaction to those of commercial adhesives. The adhesive was biocompatible and can be used carefully.