» Articles » PMID: 36549570

In Vitro Comparison of Five Desktop Scanners and an Industrial Scanner in the Evaluation of an Intraoral Scanner Accuracy

Overview
Journal J Dent
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2022 Dec 22
PMID 36549570
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners.

Methods: Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners.

Results: The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4μm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7μm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 μm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 μm) and Medit T710 (13-16 μm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31μm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 μm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 μm), and Medit T710 (20-23 μm).

Conclusions: All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy.

Clinical Significance: 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.

Citing Articles

The Effect of Angulation and Scan Body Position on Scans for Implant-Treated Edentulism: A Clinical Simulation Study.

Vasileiadi G, Ximinis E, Sarafidou K, Slini T, Gogomitros F, Athanasiadis G Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025; 27(2):e70001.

PMID: 40029212 PMC: 11875106. DOI: 10.1111/cid.70001.


The accuracy of edentulous arch impression between intraoral scanner and laboratory scanner: a scoping review.

Achmadi A, Rikmasari R, Oscandar F, Novianti V BDJ Open. 2025; 11(1):13.

PMID: 39948071 PMC: 11825872. DOI: 10.1038/s41405-025-00300-4.


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.


Accuracy of digital tooth preparations recorded using the plaster model scanning technique and two silicone impression scanning techniques.

Shen Y, Gong Z, Wang J, Fang S Heliyon. 2024; 10(22):e40477.

PMID: 39634413 PMC: 11616597. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e40477.


Human identification via digital palatal scans: a machine learning validation pilot study.

Mikolicz A, Simon B, Roudgari A, Shahbazi A, Vag J BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24(1):1381.

PMID: 39543590 PMC: 11566520. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-05162-0.