Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence

Abstract

PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (α=.05). RESULTS The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 µm), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 µm), Omnicam (41.5 µm and 18 µm), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 µm), iTero (70 and 12 µm) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 µm). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right ( P =.009). CONCLUSION The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Primescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations.

Is There a Significant Difference in Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners for Short-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis? A Comparative In Vitro Study

“…The trueness and precision of intraoral scanners has been investigated in numerous scenarios by different authors. The results of this study were consistent with the results of other previous studies [22][23][24]. Mutwalli et al evaluated the accuracy of three IOS (Trios 3, Trios 3 mono, Itero element) and obtained significant differences between the digital impressions [22].…”

“…Diker and Tak evaluated the accuracy of six IOS in the scenario of multiple single crown preparations distributed across a dentate arch. They reported the highest accuracy (trueness, precision) for Primescan (25 and 10 µm), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 µm), Omnicam (41.5 and 18 µm), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 µm), iTero (70 and 12 µm) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 µm) [23]. Ender et al also evaluated the trueness and precision of eight IOS and concluded that there were significant differences between the digital impressions, the best values being obtained for the Primescan IOS [24].…”

Dimensional Accuracy Comparison of Physical Models Generated by Digital Impression/3D-Printing or Analog Impression/Plaster Methods

“…A previous study (Diker & Tak, 2020) evaluated six different intraoral scanning systems and found that there was no statistical significant difference between TRIOS and iTero, the same scanners evaluated in the present study. However, different from the present study, the authors performed 3D models superimpositions to obtain trueness and precision values.…”

Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete arch digital scan, part 2: A comparison of scan strategies

“…4,25 Many scan strategies for complete arches have been recommended. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Oh et al 26 analyzed the 3D accuracy by using 3 scan strategies with 2 IOSs (i500 and TRIOS3); in the present study, 3D analysis was performed by applying the scan strategy that showed the best accuracy (Fig. 2A).…”

“…In previous studies, because the IOS could scan only 1 or 2 teeth at a time in one direction in the oral cavity, many scan strategies for complete-arch scanning have been proposed to improve accuracy. [21][22][23][24][25][26][27] However, the optimum scan strategy for the most accurate scan has not yet been established. The recommended scan range of an IOS for fixed dental prostheses has been reported in the first part of the present study.…”