Best-Fit Alignment in the Digital Dental Workflow

  • Xabier Amezua-LasuenEmail author
  • Mikel Iturrate-Mendieta
  • José Antonio Oriozabala-Brit
  • Xabier Garikano-Osinaga
  • Iñaki Martin-Amundarain
  • Eneko Solaberrieta-Mendez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


In recent years, together with the development of specific software for inspection and analysis of 3D images, reverse engineering has been integrated in different kind of workflows. Among other applications, this kind of software is used to assess the accuracy of different scanners such as intraoral scanners. These scanners are used to obtain digital replicas of the dental arches and then diagnose, plan and design the customized treatment for each patient. In dentistry, these replicas are known as digital impressions. However, the accuracy of digital impressions is often called into question and there have been many research studies that measure precisely this accuracy. In these research works, reverse engineering has been widely used by using standard mesh aligning tools and measuring average deviations of aligned meshes. These measured deviations often have no correlation with the deviations that can influence the success or failure of a restoration in the mouth. A specific clinical case, such as the placement of a framework on multiple implants, requires an accurate digital impression in which the distances between implants and the angulation of the scanbodies do not exceed a certain error. This error cannot be inferred by measuring the deviation between two meshes that have been aligned using software automatic alignment tools. In this study, a procedure for measuring the accuracy of digital impressions acquired with intraoral scanners has been proposed.


Best-fit alignment Reverse engineering Accuracy Inspection software Mesh processing Digital impressions 



The authors thank the Faculty of Engineering Gipuzkoa for locating the DEHI (Dental Engineering – Hortz Ingeniaritza, research group’s Laboratory in their facilities and the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU; and to the Country Council of Gipuzkoa to support this work (grant number: 70/19).


  1. 1.
    Solaberrieta, E.: Integración de la ingeniería en la odontología. Dyna 90(1), 1–4 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chochlidakis, K.M.: Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 116(2), 184–190 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mangano, F.: Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 17(1), 1–11 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burhardt, L.: Treatment comfort, time perception, and preference for conventional and digital impression techniques: a comparative study in young patients. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 150(2), 261–267 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grünheid, T.: Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 146(5), 673–682 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zimmermann, M.: Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 18(2), 101–129 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patzelt, S.B.M.: The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J. Am. Dental Assoc. 145(6), 542–551 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iturrate, M.: Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J. Prosthet. Dent. 121(3), 447–454 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luhmann, T., Robson, S., Kyle, S., Boehm, J.: Close-Range Photogrammetry and 3D Imaging, 2nd edn. De Gruyter, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richert, R.: Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J. Healthc. Eng. 2017, 1–9 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patzelt, S.B.M.: Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin. Oral Invest. 18(6), 1687–1694 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ender, A.: Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J. Prosth. Dent. 109(2), 121–128 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang, F.: Validity of intraoral scans compared with plaster models: an in-vivo comparison of dental measurements and 3D surface analysis. PLoS ONE 11(6), 1–10 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    GOM: GOM Inspect Software (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Creaform: VX elements 6.3 SR1 Software (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    3D Systems: Geomagic Studio Software (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xabier Amezua-Lasuen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mikel Iturrate-Mendieta
    • 2
  • José Antonio Oriozabala-Brit
    • 1
  • Xabier Garikano-Osinaga
    • 1
  • Iñaki Martin-Amundarain
    • 3
  • Eneko Solaberrieta-Mendez
    • 1
  1. 1.DEHI (Dental Engineering – Hortz Ingeniaritza), Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Faculty of Engineering GipuzkoaUniversity of the Basque Country UPV/EHUDonostia-San SebastianSpain
  2. 2.DEHI (Dental Engineering – Hortz Ingeniaritza), Department of Business Management, Faculty of Engineering GipuzkoaUniversity of the Basque Country UPV/EHUDonostia-San SebastianSpain
  3. 3.DEHI (Dental Engineering – Hortz Ingeniaritza), Department of Graphic Design and Engineering Projects, Faculty of Engineering GipuzkoaUniversity of the Basque Country UPV/EHUEibarSpain

Personalised recommendations