» Articles » PMID: 36981684

Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2023 Mar 29
PMID 36981684
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS), according to different scanning strategies and to the experience of the operator. Six IOS setups were used in this study. Ten scans of a complete epoxy-resin-made maxillary dental arch were performed with each IOS, using four different scanning techniques (manufacturer-suggested scanning strategy, cut-out rescan technique, simplified scanning technique, novel scanning technique). Scans were also performed by an expert operator in the field of digital dentistry. An operator with no experience in the field of intraoral scans performed 10 scans following each of the scanning strategy suggested by the manufacturer. The master model was scanned with an industrial high-resolution reference scanner to obtain a highly accurate digitized reference model. All the digital models were aligned with the reference model using a software aimed at comparing the STL files. A total of = 300 scans were performed. Once the data were pooled, Medit i700 and Primescan obtained the best results in terms of both trueness and precision, showing no statistically significative differences ( > 0.05) to the first and the second scanning technique, Medit i700 scanner allowed to obtain the best values both in terms of trueness (24.4 ± 2.1 μm and 21.4 ± 12.9 μm, respectively) and precision compared to other IOS (23.0 ± 1.6 μm and 30.0 ± 18.0 μm, respectively). When considering the third scanning technique, Medit i700 recorded the best values in terms of trueness while Primescan recorded the best values in terms of precision (24.0 ± 2.7 μm and 26.8 ± 13.7 μm, respectively). When considering the two operators, significant differences between the two were found only with Medit i700 ( < 0.001). The examined IOS showed statistically significant differences in terms of trueness and precision. The used scanning strategy is a factor influencing the accuracy of IOS. Considering the expertise of the operators, clinically scanning strategies are not operative sensitive in terms of accuracy.

Citing Articles

Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study.

Jain S, Sayed M, Khawaji R, Hakami G, Solan E, Daish M Med Sci Monit. 2024; 30:e946624.

PMID: 39645575 PMC: 11636004. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.946624.


Assessing tooth wear progression in non-human primates: a longitudinal study using intraoral scanning technology.

Towle I, Krueger K, Hernando R, Hlusko L PeerJ. 2024; 12:e17614.

PMID: 39006010 PMC: 11244035. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.17614.


Aspects of Occlusal Recordings Performed with the T-Scan System and with the Medit Intraoral Scanner.

Popa A, Vladutu D, Turcu A, Tartea D, Ionescu M, Paunescu C Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(13).

PMID: 39001349 PMC: 11241177. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14131457.


Comparative Analysis of Four Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.

Ciocan L, Vasilescu V, Rauta S, Pantea M, Pituru S, Imre M Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(13).

PMID: 39001343 PMC: 11241578. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14131453.


A Systematic Review of the Use of Intraoral Scanning for Human Identification Based on Palatal Morphology.

Kumar S, Chacko R, Kaur A, Ibrahim G, Ye D Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(5).

PMID: 38473003 PMC: 10930713. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14050531.


References
1.
Lim J, Park J, Kim M, Heo S, Myung J . Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 119(2):225-232. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002. View

2.
Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D . Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008; 204(9):505-11. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350. View

3.
Cicciu M, Fiorillo L, DAmico C, Gambino D, Amantia E, Laino L . 3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(8). PMC: 7215909. DOI: 10.3390/ma13081982. View

4.
Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R, Rotkina L, Zbaren C, Enkling N, Blatz M . Precision of fit of implant-supported screw-retained 10-unit computer-aided-designed and computer-aided-manufactured frameworks made from zirconium dioxide and titanium: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 25(2):165-74. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12039. View

5.
Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W . Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 123(1):85-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008. View