Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in terms of trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners (IOS) and the effect of different finishing line designs on the IOS's accuracy. Materials and Methods Three printed models of the maxillary arch with maxillary right first molar virtually prepared with chamfer, shoulder, and vertical preparation designs were used as master models in this study. Each model was scanned 30 times with each IOS: Medit i700, Planscan Emerald S, CEREC Primescan, TRIOS 3, CS3600, MEDIT i500, Heron 3Disc, and Cerec Omnicam. The trueness was measured by superimposition of the scanned dataset made with IOS and the scanned dataset made with a lab scanner (In Lab Medit T710) that was used as a reference and the deviation was measured and expressed as a color-coded map by the metrology program (Medit compare, version 2.3.5.892), while precision was measured by the superimposition of the scans of each IOS on each other.The data were analyzed statistically using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, one-way ANOVA test, and Bonferroni test at significance level of 0.05. Results The tested IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision. Medit i700 and CEREC Primescan recorded the highest precision with no significant difference between them, while Medit i700 recorded the highest trueness as compared to other IOS. Each IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision with the three finishing line designs except CEREC Primescan and Heron 3 disc that showed no significant difference in trueness with the three finishing line designs and CS3600 that showed no significant difference in precision with the three finishing line designs. Conclusion A significant difference in accuracy was found among the tested IOS and the type of finishing line design had a significant effect on IOS's accuracy.

Trueness of intraoral scanners: Its impact on the trueness and marginal and internal discrepancies of fabricated crowns (A comparative in vitro study)

“…In this study, the accuracy of IOSs was evaluated using trueness, as it illustrates the extent to which the scanned data matches reality. Several studies have utilized laboratory scanners as a reference to evaluate the trueness of IOSs by producing a standard reference model (20,27). Laboratory scanners are renowned for their enhanced precision, as they utilize structured light or lasers and are not solely optical.…”

“…Despite the statistically nonsigni cant differences between Primescan and Medit i700, the highest trueness was recorded by Primescan, which is in accordance with other studies (27)(28)(29)(30). Falih and Majeed evaluated the trueness and precision of eight IOSs on a printed model and found that Medit i700 showed greater trueness than Primescan and Trios3 (20). The differences in results between studies could be attributed to differences in the type of substrate and its optical characteristics and the metrology software used (31).…”

“…On the other hand, the ndings of this research indicated that Medit i700 had a trueness comparable to that of Primescan, which could be related to its scanning technology, active wave sampling (AWS), or 3D motion video technology. The superiority of this technology is well documented (20,24,34). This technology allows only one camera and an AWS module with an off-axis aperture that moves on a circular path around the optical axis; this movement generates rotation of the target points on a circle at the image plane (4).…”

“…It is a non-invasive, repeatable, inexpensive, and time-saving method (16). Despite the numerous studies evaluating the accuracy of different IOSs (17)(18)(19)(20), limited evidence is available regarding the clinical signi cance of differences in the accuracy of various IOSs on the tness of the nal restoration. Hence, this study was conducted to assess the accuracy of four commercially available IOSs and their impact on the t of monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated from these IOSs through digital assessment of trueness, marginal gaps, and internal gaps.…”

Accuracy of digital scan body impression for implant supported fixed partial denture by using intra and extra-oral scanners (comparative in vitro study)

“…The results of the present study came in agreement with Schmidt et al, (2020) [23] who tested trueness using Trios4Pod, and Primescan intraoral scanners. Also the results of (Falih & Majeed, 2022) [6] who tested trueness using Medit i700 and Primescan extra oral scanners. Further, our results disagreed with (Lo Giudice et al, 2022) [13] who claimed that since in vivo may generate more errors than an in vitro one because clinical variables are eliminated in the in vitro process removing external factors as the patient mouth environment starting from saliva, limited mouth opening, movement of the patient, tongue and check.…”