Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained Using Six Intraoral Scanners in Partially Edentulous Dentitions and the Effect of Scanning Sequence

Int J Prosthodont. Jan-Feb 2021;34(1):101-108. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6834.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of six intraoral scanners in two different partially edentulous maxillary models and to evaluate the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy.

Materials and methods: Maxillary Kennedy Class I and Class IV situations were used as reference models. The reference datasets were obtained by scanning the models using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM). The following six intraoral scanners were evaluated: Trios 3 (3Shape), iTero Element 2 (Align Technology), Emerald (Planmeca), CEREC Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona), CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), and Virtuo Vivo (Dental Wings). A total of 120 scans from both models were obtained using the six intraoral scanners and divided into two groups based on scanning sequence. Accuracy was evaluated by deviation analysis using 3D image processing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed (P ≤ .05) for statistical analysis.

Results: There were significant differences in the accuracy of digital impressions among intraoral scanners and scanning sequences. The trueness of the Trios scanner and the precision of the Trios, Primescan, and iTero scanners were significantly higher than for the other scanners. The Emerald had the lowest accuracy among the six intraoral scanners tested. Accuracy was affected by scanning sequence when using the Virtuo Vivo, Emerald, Primescan, and iTero.

Conclusion: In Kennedy Class I and Class IV partially edentulous cases, it is useful to consider that the intraoral scanner used may affect the accuracy of the digital impression.

MeSH terms

  • Computer-Aided Design
  • Dental Arch
  • Dental Impression Technique*
  • Dental Models*
  • Dentition
  • Imaging, Three-Dimensional