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.
Keywords: Digital impression; Intraoral scanner; Precision; Trueness.
Conflict of interest statement
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Similar articles
[Accuracy of three intraoral scans for primary impressions of edentulous jaws].
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2020 Feb 18;52(1):129-137. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.01.021.PMID: 32071476 Free PMC article. Chinese.- Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2021 Jun 9;56(6):570-575. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20210221-00082.PMID: 34098673 Chinese.
Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans.
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Feb;125(2):294-299. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011. Epub 2020 Feb 27.PMID: 32115221Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review.
J Prosthodont Res. 2020 Apr;64(2):109-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010. Epub 2019 Aug 30.PMID: 31474576 Review.Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review.
Int J Implant Dent. 2021 Jul 27;7(1):97. doi: 10.1186/s40729-021-00352-9.PMID: 34312701 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by 2 articles
- Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Nov 27. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04309-5. Online ahead of print.PMID: 34837565
Intraoral scanners for capturing the palate and its relation to the dentition.
Sci Rep. 2021 Jul 29;11(1):15489. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-95103-6.PMID: 34326472 Free PMC article.
References
- Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16:11–21. – PubMed