Diagnostics (Jul 2024)

Comparative Analysis of Four Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

  • Lucian Toma Ciocan,
  • Vlad Gabriel Vasilescu,
  • Sabina-Ana Răuță,
  • Mihaela Pantea,
  • Silviu-Mirel Pițuru,
  • Marina Imre

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14131453
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 13
p. 1453

Abstract

Read online

(1) Background: Intraoral scanners undergo rapid advancements in hardware and software, prompting frequent updates by manufacturers. (2) Aim: This study aimed to quantitatively assess the precision of full dental arch digital impressions obtained from four different intraoral scanners: Trios 5—3SHAPE, Copenhagen, Denmark, CEREC Primescan— Dentsply Sirona, New York, NY, USA, Planmeca Emerald S—Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland, and Medit i700—Medit Corp, Seoul, Republic of Korea. (3) Methods: A maxillary virtual dental model (digital master model) was created in accordance with ISO standard 20896-1. Subsequently, a 3D-printed model was obtained from the master model’s STL file and scanned 15 times consecutively with each scanner. STL files were aligned with the master model’s STL using Medit Link—Medit Design software v.3.1.0. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring deviations in micrometers between each scanner’s scans and the master model. (4) Results: The study revealed variations in accuracy ranging from 23 to 32 µm across scans of the same dental arch, irrespective of the scanner used and scanning strategy employed. The anterior regions exhibited higher precision (Mean Absolute Deviation of 112 µm) compared to the posterior regions (Mean Absolute Deviation of 127 µm). Trios 5 demonstrated the smallest deviation (average 112 µm), indicating superior accuracy among the scanners tested. Emerald S and Medit i700 exhibited balanced performance (average 117 µm and 114 µm, respectively), while Primescan consistently displayed high deviation (average 127 µm). (5) Conclusions: Based on clinically accepted thresholds for accuracy in intraoral scanning, which are typically 200 µm for full arch scans, Trios 5 surpasses these benchmarks with its average deviation falling within the 200 µm range. Emerald S and Medit i700 also meet these standards, while Primescan, although showing high overall deviation, approaches the upper limit of clinical acceptability. Considering the limitations of an in vitro investigation, the findings demonstrate that each intraoral scanner under evaluation is capable of reliably and consistently capturing a full arch scan for dentate patients.

Keywords