A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study
- PMID: 31870614
- DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.023
A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study
Abstract
Statement of problem: Measuring both the trueness and precision of an intraoral scanner (IOS) will provide a thorough understanding of its accuracy.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the complete-arch trueness and precision of 3 commercially available intraoral scanners equipped with the latest software version and compare them by using a laboratory scanner as reference.
Material and methods: Nineteen maxillary and 19 mandibular completely dentate stone casts previously acquired from 19 patients by using a polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) dual mix impression and stock trays were scanned with 3 intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3; 3Shape A/S, i500; Medit, and Emerald; Planmeca) using their latest software versions. The same casts were also scanned with a laboratory scanner (E3; 3Shape A/S) that served as the reference scanner. Files were exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format and inserted into a metrology 3D mesh comparison software program (CloudCompare).
Results: In terms of trueness, a significant difference was found among the scanners (F (2.37)=239.7, P<.001). Planmeca Emerald had significantly lower trueness values than either the Medit i500 (P<.001) or the 3Shape A/S TRIOS 3 (P<.001). No significant difference in trueness was found between the Medit i500 and the 3Shape A/S TRIOS 3 scanner (P=.365). In terms of precision, a significant difference was found among the scanners (F (2.89)=301.2, P<.001). The 3Shape A/S TRIOS 3 scanner was significantly more precise than the other scanners (P<.001 for both the Medit i500 and Planmeca Emerald). The Planmeca scanner was significantly more precise than the Medit i500 scanner (P<.001). Concerning the ability of the scanners to reproduce the files of the reference scanner without overestimation or underestimation, the Medit i500 produced files that significantly underestimated the reference scanner's files (t (37)=-12.4, P<.001). The other scanners did not significantly either underestimate or overestimate the files of the standard (t (37)=-1.91, P=.062 for the TRIOS 3 and t (37)=1.64, P=.101 for the Planmeca) CONCLUSIONS: With regard to completely dentate arch trueness, the Planmeca Emerald IOS had statistically lower trueness. With regard to complete dentate arch precision, the 3Shape A/S TRIOS 3 IOS was the statistically more precise scanner. With regard to reference scanner file estimation, the Medit i500 IOS produced files that significantly underestimated the reference scanner files. All 3 tested scanners exhibited a completely dentate arch average accuracy below 100 μm in vitro.
Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Influence of different material substrates on the accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study.Int J Prosthodont. 2022 January/February;35(1):82–93. doi: 10.11607/ijp.7297. Epub 2021 Mar 18. Int J Prosthodont. 2022. PMID: 33751003
-
Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study.J Dent. 2023 Dec;139:104764. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104764. Epub 2023 Oct 26. J Dent. 2023. PMID: 37898433
-
A comparative study assessing the precision and trueness of digital and printed casts produced from several intraoral and extraoral scanners in full arch and short span (3-unit FPD) scanning: An in vitro study.J Prosthodont. 2023 Jun;32(5):423-430. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13568. Epub 2022 Aug 3. J Prosthodont. 2023. PMID: 35852379
-
Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.J Dent. 2023 Oct;137:104636. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104636. Epub 2023 Jul 27. J Dent. 2023. PMID: 37516338 Review.
-
ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL SCANNERS VERSUS TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS: A RAPID UMBRELLA REVIEW.J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022 Sep;22(3):101719. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719. Epub 2022 Mar 18. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2022. PMID: 36162879 Review.
Cited by
-
Assessment of the correlation between supracrestal gingival tissue dimensions and other periodontal phenotypes components via the digital registration method: a cross‑sectional study in a Chinese population.BMC Oral Health. 2024 Apr 1;24(1):408. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04158-0. BMC Oral Health. 2024. PMID: 38561756 Free PMC article.
-
Clinician- and Patient-Centred Outcomes of Digital Impressions in Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review.Children (Basel). 2024 Mar 13;11(3):343. doi: 10.3390/children11030343. Children (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38539378 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Accuracy of digitally coded healing abutments: A systematic review.Saudi Dent J. 2023 Dec;35(8):891-903. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.08.006. Epub 2023 Aug 18. Saudi Dent J. 2023. PMID: 38107040 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions.BMC Oral Health. 2023 Oct 18;23(1):766. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03476-z. BMC Oral Health. 2023. PMID: 37853398 Free PMC article.
-
Optimal settings for different tooth types in the virtual bracket removal technique.Angle Orthod. 2024 Jan 1;94(1):68-74. doi: 10.2319/022323-124.1. Angle Orthod. 2024. PMID: 37839805 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials