Home > Riviste > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 August;71(4) > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 August;71(4):199-205



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo



Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2022 August;71(4):199-205

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04595-2


lingua: Inglese

A comparison of accuracy between three different facial detection systems for prosthodontic esthetic preview: a single-blinded in vitro study

Luca ORTENSI 1, Maria L. FISICHELLA 1, Marco ORTENSI 2, Francesco GRANDE 3, Gerardo PELLEGRINO 3, Agnese FERRI 3, Giusy R. M. LA ROSA 1 , Eugenio PEDULLÀ 1

1 Department of General Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, University of Catania, Catania, Italy; 2 CDT Private Practice, Bologna, Italy; 3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of 3 different devices for facial images acquisition, useful for prosthodontic esthetic preview.
METHODS: Bidimensional extraoral photographs (Nikon D300), facial scans (Bellus3D) and 3D digital stereophotogrammetry photos (3dMD Face System) were acquired from 15 patients. The intraoral impressions of all subjects were digitally taken through a scanner (i500; Medit). Files obtained from each acquisition method were transferred on Exocad Software, and the measurements of the frontal teeth were performed and compared with those of the intraoral scans, assumed as reference. The data were statistically analyzed (Friedman and Dunn tests) with P<0.05.
RESULTS: As for central and lateral incisors, no significant difference emerged between 2D digital photography and intraoral scans, both in height and width. Measures obtained with Bellus3D significantly differed from the reference data in width of all teeth, except for central incisors. Values referred to canines were those more subjected to significant distortions in width for all devices.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, measures of frontal teeth acquired by 2D digital photography were similar to those of intraoral scans both in height and width, while those obtained with 3D facial scanners were more subjected to distortions in mesial-distal dimension.

KEY WORDS: Dental impression technique; Photogrammetry; Prosthodontics

inizio pagina