Comparative Analysis of the Accuracy of Six Intraoral Scanners Using a Full-Arch Model

Year 2024, Volume: 51 Issue: 3, 141 - 146

Münir Demirel , Faruk Emir , Gülsüm Ceylan , Almira Ada Diken Türksayar

https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2024.0023

Abstract

Objective: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the scan accuracy of 6 intraoral scanners (IOSs) by using a dentate model.
Methods: A maxillary dentate reference model was digitized with an industrial-grade blue light optical scanner to generate a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. The same model was digitized by using 6 IOSs (Trios 4, Trios 3, Primescan, Omnicam, Planmeca Emerald S, and Medit i700) (n=10) to generate test scan STLs. All STL files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software program (Geomagic Control X). Test scan STLs were superimposed over the reference STL by using the initial and best-fit alignments of the software program, and the deviations of the scans of IOS from that of the optical scanner were calculated with the root mean square (RMS) method. The average deviation method was used to define the precision of the scans. Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni tests were used to statistically evaluate the data (α=0.05).
Results: A significant difference was observed between groups in terms of RMS values (p<0.001). The Medit i700 and Primescan IOS systems had the lowest RMS values, respectively, indicating the highest trueness. No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of precision. (p=0.055)
Conclusion: While differences were observed among the six intraoral scanners, the accuracy of the selected IOSs remained within the clinically acceptable ranges. The Medit i700 and Primescan IOS exhibited a higher level of precision in comparison to the other devices. The accuracy of the scanner should be assessed, taking into account clinician, patient, and IOS dependent variables.

Keywords

digital impression, intraoral scanner, 3D analysis

References

• Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng. 2010;20(5):243–249. doi:10.3233/bme-2010-0638.
• Seo K, Kim S. A new method to evaluate trueness and precision of digital and conventional impression techniques for complete dental arch. Appl Sci. 2021;11(10):4612. doi:10.3390/app11104612.
• Damodara EK, Litaker MS, Rahemtulla F, McCracken MS. A randomized clinical trial to compare diagnostic casts made using plastic and metal trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;104(6):364–371. doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(10)60167-9.
• DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko CC, Douglas WH. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res. 2003;82(6):438–442. doi:10.1177/154405910308200607.
• Emir F, Piskin B, Sipahi C. Effect of dental technician disparities on the 3-dimensional accuracy of definitive casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):410–418. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.008.
• Mandelli F, Gherlone E, Gastaldi G, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the accuracy of extraoral laboratory scanners with a single-tooth abutment model: A 3D analysis. JPR. 2017;61(4):363–370. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2016.09.002.
• Ting-shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313–321. doi:10.1111/jopr.12218.
• Shimizu S, Shinya A, Kuroda S, Gomi H. The accuracy of the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for designing of fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater J. 2017;36(4):402–407. doi:10.4012/dmj.2016-326.
• Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Vanhove C, Dierens M, Jimbo R, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of optical dental digitizers: an in vitro study. IJPRD. 2015;35(1):115–121. doi:10.11607/prd.2185.
• Bohner LOL, Canto GDL, Marció BS, Laganá DC, Sesma N, Neto PT. Computer-aided analysis of digital dental impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(5):617–623. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.11.018.
• de Villaumbrosia PG, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(4):543–550.e1. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.025.
• Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:1–13. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4.
• Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent. 2016;55:68–74. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002.
• Park HR, Park JM, Chun YS, Lee KN, Kim M. Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:1–7. doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0140-5.
• Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners: A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(Suppl 1):101–120.
• Stefanelli LV, Franchina A, Pranno A, Pellegrino G, Ferri A, Pranno N, et al. Use of intraoral scanners for full dental arches: could different strategies or overlapping software affect accuracy? IJERPH. 2021;18(19):9946. doi:10.3390/ijerph18199946.
• Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Biomed Res Int. 2021;2021(1):2673040. doi:10.1155/2021/2673040.
• ISO. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 1: General principles and definitions. ISO. 1994.
• Giuliodori G, Rappelli G, Aquilanti L. Intraoral scans of full dental arches: An in vitro measurement study of the accuracy of different intraoral scanners. IJERPH. 2023;20(6):4776. doi:10.3390/ijerph20064776.
• Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:1–11. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x.
• Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(1):36–42. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024.
• Wang X, Zhang F, Ma D, Ye X, Zheng X, Ren R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners for the full dentate and partially edentulous complete-arch mandibular casts: An in vitro comparison. Heliyon. 2024;10(10):e31063. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31063.
• Schmalzl J, Róth I, Borbély J, Hermann P, Vecsei B. The impact of software updates on accuracy of intraoral scanners. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):219. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-02926-y.
• Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps I. Accuracy of 4 digital scanning systems on prepared teeth digitally isolated from a complete dental arch. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(5):811–820. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.020.
• Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018;69:110–118. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006.
• Winkler J, Gkantidis N. Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1172. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-58075-7.
• Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: a clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(3):400–405. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.022.
• Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015;46(1):9–17. doi:10.3290/j.qi.a32244.
• Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1201–1208. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0.
• Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(3):107–113. doi:10.11607/ijp.5643.
• Luthardt R, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent. 2005;8(4):283–294.
• Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1):11–28. doi:10.5167/uzh-18814.
• Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:1495–1504. doi:10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y.
• Kaewbuasa N, Ongthiemsak C. Effect of different arch widths on the accuracy of three intraoral scanners. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021;13(4):205. doi:10.4047/jap.2021.13.4.205.
• Kernen F, Schlager S, Alvarez VS, Mehrhof J, Vach K, Kohal R, et al. Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different scanning devices. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(6):1303–1309. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.007.
• Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):85–95. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008.