Abstract
Statement of problem
Evidence for the accuracy of a recently introduced intraoral scanner is lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the trueness (validity)
and precision (reliability) of 2 intraoral scanners by scanning a quadrant and a sextant.
Material and methods
A maxillary typodont with plastic teeth made from a shade A3 polymethyl methacrylate
was scanned (n=10) with each intraoral scanner (Planmeca Emerald and 3Shape TRIOS
3) to obtain sextant and quadrant scans. Control scans were made with an industrial
optical scanner. The scans were analyzed with a 3D reverse engineering software program
and an independent samples t test and general linear model 2-way analysis of variance (α=.05).
Results
The 3Shape TRIOS 3 scanner showed no significant difference between the sextant and
quadrant scans in trueness (P=.118) or in precision (P<.285). The Emerald scanner had statistically significant higher trueness for the
sextant scan (P=.007). The 3Shape TRIOS 3 scanner had better performance in trueness and precision
when compared with the Emerald scanner.
Conclusions
The 3Shape TRIOS 3 scanner was found to be more accurate than the Emerald scanner
in terms of trueness and precision, regardless of the scanning field. The Emerald
scanner’s trueness decreased as the scanning field increased from a sextant to a quadrant.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The evolution of the CEREC system.J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137: 7-13
- Intraoral digital impression technique: a review.J Prosthodont. 2015; 24: 313-321
- Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: e185-e189
- Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-115
- Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 214-219
- A comparative analysis of intraoral 3D digital scanners for restorative dentistry.Internet J Med Technol. 2011; 5: 1-8
- Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology.J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010; 38: 323-330
- 3M Innovative Properties Co, assignee. Three-channel camera systems with non-collinear apertures.2008 (US patent US 7 372 642)
- Scanning accuracy and precision in intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1461-1471
- Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results e part 1: general principles and definitions (ISO 5725e1:1994).Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin1997
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Accuracy of polyether and addition silicone after long-term immersion disinfection.J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78: 245-249
- Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study.J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 59: 236-242
- Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation.ADA Prof Prod Rev. 2015; 10: 1-5
- Contemporary fixed prosthodontics.5th ed. Mosby/Elsevier, St. Louis2016: 325-327
- Measurement of the refractive index of human teeth by optical coherence tomography.J Biomed Opt. 2009; 14: 034010
- Validation of an optical system to measure acetabular shell deformation in cadavers.Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2014; 228: 781-786
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
- A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator.J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10: 58-64
- Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: an in vitro study.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 755-759
- In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 313-320
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 07, 2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
