Abstract
Statement of problem
The quality of the digital cast obtained from an intraoral scanner is an important
comparison parameter for computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM)
restorations. However, data on cast quality are typically provided by manufacturers,
and objective evaluation of these devices is lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to build an evaluation protocol of 8 intraoral
scanners by using an objective method for a small-scale model equivalent in size to
a 4-tooth wide cast. In addition, a laboratory scanner was included to compare the
performance of intraoral and extraoral devices.
Material and methods
An 8-mm-thick zirconia gauge block was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner
(Iscan D104) and 8 intraoral scanners (Omnicam, Primescan, Itero element 5D, CS 3600,
TRIOS 3, Emerald, Planscan, and Medit i500). The obtained digital casts were extracted
as standard tessellation language (STL) files and analyzed to evaluate the digitizing
noise, dimensional trueness, and dimensional precision of each scanner. After validation
of the normal distribution of the digitizing noise, dimensional trueness, and precision
test results for each scanner with the Shapiro-Wilk test (α=.05), differences were
determined with a 1-way ANOVA test.
Results
Statistical differences were found between scanners (P<.05). The digitizing noise ranged from 3.2 ±0.6 μm with the Primescan to 15.5 ±2.5
μm with the Planscan. The dimensional trueness ranged from 19.1 ±11.5 μm for the CS3600
to 243.8 ±33.6 μm for the Planscan. The dimensional precision ranged from 7.7 ±2.4
μm for the Primescan to 53.7 ±3.4 μm for the Emerald. The group Iscan D104, Primescan,
Itero 5D, CS3600, and TRIOS 3 showed minimally significant differences.
Conclusions
Significant differences were found among the intraoral scanners for small-scale scans.
The objective methodology of using a gauge block provided coherent and repeatable
results.
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
- Review of the intraoral scanners at IDS 2019 [internet]. CAD/CAM.(Available at:)https://instituteofdigitaldentistry.com/ids-2019/review-of-the-intra-oral-scanners-at-ids-2019/Date: 2019Date accessed: September 18, 2019
- Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations.J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137: 22-31
- Up to 27-years clinical long-term results of chairside Cerec 1 CAD/CAM inlays and onlays.Int J Comput Dent. 2017; 20: 315-329
- Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 447-454
- Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 129-136
- Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; 31: 369-377
- Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro.Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22: 11-19
- ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: general principles and definitions.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva1994 (ISO (Date: 1994-12). Available at:)
- What is the prevalence of various types of prosthetic dental restorations in Europe?.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18: 20-33
- Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: a literature review.J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 109-113
- A knowledge database of qualified digitizing systems for the selection of the best system according to the application.CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol. 2016; 13: 15-23
- Evaluation of the accuracy and precision of four intraoral scanners with 70% reduced inlay and four-unit bridge models of international standard.Dent Mater J. 2017; 36: 27-34
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.PLoS One. 2016; 11e0163107
- Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 92-114
- Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations.J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24: 85-94
- Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization.Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21: 1445-1455
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 617-623
- Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches.J Dent Res. 2003; 82: 438-442
- Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system.Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 2035-2043
- Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1461-1471
- Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study.Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22: 307-319
- Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 27, 2021
Footnotes
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
