Full-arch Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners: Analysis of Trueness and Precision

Overview

Journal Korean J Orthod

Date 2021 Mar 8

PMID 33678625

Citations 8

Authors

Miran Kwon

Youngmok Cho

Dong-Wook Kim

MyungSu Kim

Yoon-Ji Kim

Minho Chang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the trueness and precision of full-arch scans acquired using five intraoral scanners and investigate the factors associated with the dimensional accuracy of the intraoral scan data.

Methods: Nine adult participants (mean age, 34.3 ± 8.3 years) were recruited. Four zirconium spheres (Ø 6 mm) were bonded to the canines and the molars. Following acquisition of reference scans using an industrial-grade scanner, five intraoral scanners, namely i500, CS3600, Trios 3, iTero, and CEREC Omnicam, were used to scan the arches. Linear distances between the four reference spheres were automatically calculated, and linear mixed model analysis was performed to compare the trueness and precision of the intraoral scan data among the different scanners.

Results: The absolute mean trueness and precision values for all intraoral scanners were 76.6 ± 79.3 and 56.6 ± 52.4 μm, respectively. The type of scanner and the measured linear distances had significant effects on the accuracy of the intraoral scan data. With regard to trueness, errors in the intermolar dimension and the distance from the canine to the contralateral molar were greater with Omnicam than with the other scanners. With regard to precision, the error in the linear distance from the canine to the molar in the same quadrant was greater with Omnicam and CS3600 than with the other scanners.

Conclusions: The dimensional accuracy of intraoral scan data may differ significantly according to the type of scanner, with the amount of error in terms of trueness being clinically significant.

Citing Articles

Comparisons of precision and trueness of digital dental casts produced by desktop scanners and intraoral scanners.

Chuang C, Cheng F, Chen M, Lin W, Chiang C J Dent Sci. 2025; 20(1):137-146.

PMID: 39873032 PMC: 11763548. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.09.016.

Evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch impressions between three different intraoral scanners and conventional impressions: A prospective in vivo study.

Bhatia N, Pandian S J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2024; 18(1):77-84.

PMID: 38881640 PMC: 11179144. DOI: 10.34172/joddd.40841.

Surface wear of attachments in patients during clear aligner therapy: a prospective clinical study.

Li Q, Yang K Prog Orthod. 2024; 25(1):7.

PMID: 38369617 PMC: 10874919. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-023-00506-y.

Accuracy of Computerized Optical Impression Making in Fabrication of Removable Dentures for Partially Edentulous Jaws: An In Vivo Feasibility Study.

Saravi B, Ilbertz J, Vach K, Kohal R, Patzelt S J Funct Biomater. 2023; 14(9).

PMID: 37754872 PMC: 10532381. DOI: 10.3390/jfb14090458.

Intraoral scanners in children: evaluation of the patient perception, reliability and reproducibility, and chairside time-A systematic review.

Serrano-Velasco D, Martin-Vacas A, Paz-Cortes M, Giovannini G, Cintora-Lopez P, Aragoneses J Front Pediatr. 2023; 11:1213072.

PMID: 37435173 PMC: 10331299. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1213072.

References

Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M . Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2015; 38(4):422-8. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv077. View

Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A . In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 115(3):313-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011. View

Boeddinghaus M, Breloer E, Rehmann P, Wostmann B . Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19(8):2027-34. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7. View

Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y . Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 117(1):93-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.008. View

Flugge T, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger M . Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144(3):471-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017. View

Rhee Y, Huh Y, Cho L, Park C . Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 7(6):460-7. PMC: 4722150. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460. View

Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B . A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent. 2016; 55:68-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002. View

Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A . Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2017; 69:110-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006. View

Lee K . Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three-dimensional surface analysis. Prog Orthod. 2018; 19(1):6. PMC: 6890885. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0205-5. View

10.

Guth J, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D . Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 17(4):1201-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0. View

11.

Sousa M, Vasconcelos E, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A . Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142(2):269-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.028. View

12.

Oh K, Park J, Moon H . Effects of Scanning Strategy and Scanner Type on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: A New Approach for Assessing the Accuracy of Scanned Data. J Prosthodont. 2020; 29(6):518-523. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13158. View

13.

Grunheid T, McCarthy S, Larson B . Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146(5):673-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023. View

14.

Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M . Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 124(3):372-378. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003. View

15.

Ender A, Mehl A . Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 2013; 16(1):11-21. View

16.

Ender A, Mehl A . Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109(2):121-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1. View

17.

Berrendero S, Salido M, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradies G . Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(9):2403-2410. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1714-6. View

18.

Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J . Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016; 47(4):343-9. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a35524. View

19.

Atieh M, Ritter A, Ko C, Duqum I . Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118(3):400-405. PMC: 5812952. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.022. View