Use of Intraoral Scanners for Full Dental Arches: Could Different Strategies or Overlapping Software Affect Accuracy?

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Different Scan Patterns for Full-Arch Digital Implant Impressions

The optimal scan pattern for full-arch digital implant impressions remains to be determined. This study aimed to analyze the effects of different scan patterns on the trueness of intraoral scanners for full-arch digital implant impressions. A maxillary plaster model with 4 implant analogs was employed as the master model. Scan bodies were attached to the master model and scanned with a laboratory scanner to obtain reference data. Test scans were obtained using 3 different scan patterns with Cerec Primescan and Trios 3. Each test datum was superimposed onto the reference data. The trueness was assessed by determining the 3D distance and angular deviations between the test and reference data. Significant differences in 3D distance deviation were detected among the scan patterns for both scanners. Significant differences in angle deviation were detected among the scan patterns for the Cerec Primescan, whereas it was not substantial for the Trios 3. Cerec Primescan exhibited superior trueness across all scan patterns compared with Trios 3. The zigzag pattern resulted in more accurate scans for the Cerec Primescan, whereas both the zigzag and occlusal-palatal-buccal patterns showed higher accuracy for the Trios 3.

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

(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.

Impact of the superimposition reference area on intraoral scanning accuracy in a partially dentate maxilla

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The alignment of 3-dimensional (3D) files involves selecting a reference area before performing a local best fit alignment during the digital scan superimposition and is essential for comparing digital scans. Scan alignment relies on both reference area location and the alignment algorithm. However, a consensus on the impact of different reference areas on intraoral scanning accuracy is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the impact of 3 superimposition reference areas on the accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners for a partially dentate maxilla.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Kennedy class II resin cast was scanned using 3 intraoral scanners (Primescan, TRIOS 3, and Emerald) outputting 30 digital scans (10 per scanner). Test scans from intraoral scanners were subsequently compared with a reference digital standard tessellation language file generated by a laboratory scanner with validated accuracy. The files were superimposed using best fit alignment for each intraoral scanner using 3 different superimposition reference areas (whole region of interest, palate, and all teeth). Accuracy was assessed by using a 3D analysis program (Geomagic Control X; 3D systems) for each scanner at 4 preselected areas. Test and reference scan differences were depicted on color maps and quantified via root mean square deviations. Differences were analyzed using regression analysis with the post hoc student t test and Bonferroni correction (α=.05).

RESULTS

The TRIOS 3 and Emerald produced positive deviations in the palatal color maps, whereas Primescan produced more uniform color maps, regardless of the superimposition strategy used. Primescan exhibited the best accuracy (trueness and precision) in both palatal and bounded edentulous areas, regardless of the superimposition reference area. The TRIOS 3 recorded the highest distal extension trueness (ranging from 42.9±7.7 µm to 65 ±19.5 µm), and Primescan achieved the highest precision (ranging from 28.5 ±9.8 µm to 48.9 ±16.9 µm), regardless of the superimposition area. Emerald demonstrated the highest teeth trueness (ranging from 31.6 ±6.8 µm to 69.6 ±11.5 µm), while Primescan produced the highest precision (ranging from 17.9 ±6.1 µm to 30.7 ±9.2 µm), regardless of the reference area used.

CONCLUSIONS

The chosen reference area for best fit alignment significantly influenced digital scan accuracy (P<.001). Primescan displayed the highest palatal and bounded edentulous area accuracy, with TRIOS 3 recording the highest distal extension trueness. Emerald recorded the highest teeth trueness and Primescan recorded the highest distal extension and tooth precision. All conclusions were independent of the superimposition strategy used.

Evaluation and comparison of the accuracy of three intraoral scanners for replicating a complete denture

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Technological advances in digital acquisition tools have increased the scope of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scanning a removable complete denture (RCD) to replicate it. However, studies assessing the accuracy of IOSs for replicating a maxillary or mandibular RCD are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3 IOSs while replicating a maxillary and mandibular RCD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One maxillary and 1 mandibular RCD were scanned with a desktop scanner (D2000) to obtain the reference model. Two operators scanned each RCD 5 times with 3 different IOSs (TRIOS 4, Primescan, and IS3800), following a predefined acquisition protocol. The 60 study models obtained were compared with the reference model using the Geomagic software program. For each comparison, the mean and standard deviation of discrepancy were calculated. Distances were measured on both the reference and the study model, and differences were calculated to assess whether sagittal or transverse deformations were present. The tolerance percentage of the volume of the digital model compared with the volume of the reference model was determined (difference tolerance was set at 0.1 mm). A univariate analysis of variance followed by a post hoc analysis using the Student-Newman-Keuls (α=.05) test was performed to determine the truest and the most precise IOS.

RESULTS

The TRIOS 4 and Primescan IOSs had comparable trueness, with mean dimensional variations of 47 ±27 µm and 57 ±8 µm respectively compared with the reference model. The IS3800 had a lower trueness (98 ±35 µm). Primescan was significantly more precise with a mean standard deviation of 64 ±15 µm (P<.05). The TRIOS 4 (141 ±48 µm) and IS3800 (129 ±24 µm) had comparable precision. Primescan showed the least sagittal and transverse deformation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study determined that an RCD can be replicated using an IOS, although all IOSs did not have equal accuracy. An in vivo study needs to assess whether this procedure is clinically acceptable.

Effect of different intraoral scanning strategies on the marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay restorations: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Whether the scanning strategy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) affects the accuracy of the digital recording for an indirect ceramic inlay restoration is unclear. Furthermore, which strategy would be optimal and most effective is uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the impact of 3 different scanning strategies using the Carestream CS 3700 IOS on the marginal and internal fit of a mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) ceramic inlay restoration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A typodont master model (ANA-4 VCER; Frasaco) was used with a standardized preprepared MOD inlay maxillary first molar typodont tooth (ANA-4 ZP16 CER99-008; Frasaco) (N=30). These inlay preparations were scanned with the CS 3700 IOS using 3 different scanning strategies: linear, wave, and S-figure scanning strategies. Each scan strategy group was scanned 10 times for all groups to obtain 30 standard tessellation language (STL) files. Thirty restorations were milled from lithium disilicate CAD blocks (IPS e.max; Ivoclar AG) and cemented into their typodont-prepared inlay cavities. A single examiner used a stereomicroscope to measure the marginal and internal gaps at the predetermined points. A 1-way ANOVA was used for the statistical analysis, followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment. All tests were 2-tailed (α=.05).

RESULTS

All scanning strategy groups demonstrated statistically significant differences for the marginal and internal fit of the inlay restorations (P<.001). Overall, the linear scanning strategy showed the lowest mean marginal and internal gap values (29.2 ±3.6 µm and 39.0 ±6.4 µm), followed by the wave scanning strategy, which had comparable mean marginal and internal gap values: 49.1 ±3.6 µm and 48.2 ±6.0 µm, respectively. The S-figure scan strategy had the highest mean marginal and internal gap values: 50.2 ±12.6 µm and 71.3 ±7.7 µm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Inlay restorations scanned by the linear scan strategy had the best marginal and internal fit when scanned with the CS 3700 IOS.

A digital approach to fabricating a custom holder for the attachment of a mandibular sensor of an optical jaw motion tracking system: A dental technique

A digital approach to fabricating a custom holder to attach a mandibular sensor of an optical jaw motion tracking system is described. Typically, jaw motion tracking systems come with standard holders. However, additional chairside time is still required to adapt the holder's arm to the individual arch and securely attach the holder to the mandibular teeth. Moreover, the placement of the standard holder is problematic in patients with a deep vertical overlap or with short clinical crowns. This technique offers a digital approach to designing and fabricating a custom holder in situations where standard holders cannot be efficiently attached. The custom holder is designed to accommodate the available space without interfering with the occlusion, thereby minimizing the time needed to attach the holder and optimizing the workflow for clinical jaw motion tracking.

Effect of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanners: a meta-analysis of in vitro studies

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of intraoral scanners is influenced by different scanning strategies in an in vitro setting, through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 standard. The following PICOS approach was used: population, tooth impressions; intervention, the use of intraoral scanners with scanning strategies different from the manufacturer's instructions; control, the use of intraoral scanners following the manufacturers' requirements; outcome, accuracy of intraoral scanners; type of studies, in vitro. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases including Embase, SciELO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were based on in vitro studies that reported the accuracy of digital impressions using intraoral scanners. Analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3.5; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Global comparisons were made using a standardized mean difference based on random-effect models, with a significance level of α = 0.05.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 15 articles. Digital impression accuracy significantly improved under dry conditions (P < 0.001). Moreover, trueness and precision were enhanced when artificial landmarks were used (P ≤ 0.02) and when an S-shaped pattern was followed (P ≤ 0.01). However, the type of light used did not have a significant impact on the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanners (P ≥ 0.16).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of digital intraoral scanners can be enhanced by employing scanning processes using artificial landmarks and digital impressions under dry conditions.

Comparison of intraoral and laboratory scanners to an industrial-grade scanner while analyzing the fabrication trueness of polymer and titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks

OBJECTIVES

To compare the scans of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) and laboratory scanners (LBSs) to those of an industrial-grade optical scanner by measuring deviations of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks from their virtual design file.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and 10 titanium (Ti) complete-arch implant-supported frameworks were milled from a master standard tessellation language (STL) file. An industrial-grade blue light scanner (AT), 2 LBSs (MT and E4), and 3 IOSs (PS, T3, and T4) were used to generate STL files of these frameworks. All STLs were imported into an analysis software (Geomagic Control X) and overall root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. Marginal surfaces of all STL files were then virtually isolated (Medit Link v 2.4.4) and marginal RMS values were calculated. Deviations in scans of tested scanners were compared with those in scans of AT by using a linear mixed effects model (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

When the scans of PEEK frameworks were considered, PS and T3 had similar overall RMS to those of AT (p ≥ .076). However, E4 and T4 had higher and MT had lower overall RMS than AT (p ≤ .002) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 13.41 µm. When the scans of Ti frameworks were considered, AT had significantly lower overall RMS than tested scanners (p ≤ .010) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 31.35 µm. Scans of tested scanners led to significantly higher marginal RMS than scans of AT (p ≤ .006) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 53.90 µm for PEEK and 40.50 µm for Ti frameworks.

CONCLUSION

Only the PEEK framework scans of PS and T3 led to similar overall deviations to those of AT. However, scans of all tested scanners resulted in higher marginal deviations than those of AT scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scans performed by using PS and T3 may be alternatives to those of tested reference industrial scanner AT, for the overall fabrication trueness analysis of complete-arch implant-supported PEEK frameworks.

Accuracy of Intraoral Scanner for Recording Completely Edentulous Arches-A Systematic Review

Scanning edentulous arches during complete denture fabrication is a crucial step; however, the quality of the resulting digital scan is still questionable. The purpose of this study is to systematically review studies (both clinical and in vitro) and determine whether intraoral scanners have clinically acceptable accuracy when recording completely edentulous arches for the fabrication of removable complete dentures. An electronic search in medical databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS), using a combination of relevant keywords, retrieved 334 articles. After full-text evaluation, twelve articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review (eight clinical studies and four in vitro studies). A quality analysis of the included studies was carried out using the QUADAS-2 tool. The accuracy values varied between different intraoral scanners. Different regions of the edentulous arches showed differences in trueness and precision values in both in vitro and clinical studies. Peripheral borders, the inner seal, and poorly traceable structures like the soft palate showed maximum discrepancies. The accuracy of intraoral scanners in recording clear anatomic landmarks like hard tissues with attached mucosa was comparable to conventional edentulous arch impressions. However, higher discrepancies were recorded when digitizing mobile and poorly traceable structures. Intraoral scanners can be used to digitize denture-bearing areas, but the interpretation of the peripheral border and the soft palate should be carefully carried out.

Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

 This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in terms of trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners (IOS) and the effect of different finishing line designs on the IOS's accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Three printed models of the maxillary arch with maxillary right first molar virtually prepared with chamfer, shoulder, and vertical preparation designs were used as master models in this study. Each model was scanned 30 times with each IOS: Medit i700, Planscan Emerald S, CEREC Primescan, TRIOS 3, CS3600, MEDIT i500, Heron 3Disc, and Cerec Omnicam. The trueness was measured by superimposition of the scanned dataset made with IOS and the scanned dataset made with a lab scanner (In Lab Medit T710) that was used as a reference and the deviation was measured and expressed as a color-coded map by the metrology program (Medit compare, version 2.3.5.892), while precision was measured by the superimposition of the scans of each IOS on each other.The data were analyzed statistically using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, one-way ANOVA test, and Bonferroni test at significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

 The tested IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision. Medit i700 and CEREC Primescan recorded the highest precision with no significant difference between them, while Medit i700 recorded the highest trueness as compared to other IOS. Each IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision with the three finishing line designs except CEREC Primescan and Heron 3 disc that showed no significant difference in trueness with the three finishing line designs and CS3600 that showed no significant difference in precision with the three finishing line designs.

CONCLUSION

 A significant difference in accuracy was found among the tested IOS and the type of finishing line design had a significant effect on IOS's accuracy.

Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the complete-arch scanning accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) to that of reference standard tessellation language (STL) files.

DATA

Studies comparing the trueness and precision of IOS STL files with those of reference STL scans for different arch types (dentate, edentulous, completely edentulous with implants, and partially edentulous with implants) were included in this study.

SOURCES

An electronic search of five databases restricted to the English Language was conducted in October 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 3,815 studies were identified, of which 114 were eligible for inclusion. After study selection and data extraction, pair-wise comparison and NMA were performed to define the accuracy of scanning for four arch subgroups using four outcomes (trueness and precision expressed as mean absolute deviation and root mean square values). Cochrane guidelines and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the risk of bias. GRADE was used for certainty assessment.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were included in this NMA. Altogether, 26 IOSs were compared directly and indirectly in 10 network systems. The accuracy of IOSs scans were not significantly different from the reference scans for dentate arches (three IOSs), edentulous arches (three IOSs), and completely edentulous arches with implants (one IOS). The accuracy of the IOSs was significantly different from the reference scans for partially edentulous arches with implants. Significant accuracy differences were found between the IOSs, regardless of clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of complete-arch scanning by IOSs differs based on clinical scenarios.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Different IOSs should be used according to the complete arch type.

Linear Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Impressions of Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This article compares the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) used in the digital impression of full arches to fabricate implant-supported complete prostheses. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/CPM9K). Six electronic databases, gray literature databases, and a manual search were performed in April 2022. Studies that evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scan impressions compared with conventional impressions in full-arch impressions were included for complete implant-supported prostheses. In addition, an adapted checklist for reporting in vitro studies was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects Hunter- Schmidt model. Nine studies were included in the analysis. IOS impressions present higher accuracy (137.86 μm) than conventional impressions (182.51 μm) (p<0.001). The heterogeneity of the study's methodology was I2¼18.34. However, impression accuracy varies significantly with scan body type, IOS type, scanning strategy, and modification technique. For most IOS systems, the acceptable clinical threshold of linear accuracy of 200 μm can be achieved, except for the True Definition Scanner in one of the studies. Based on the results of the included studies, digital impressions using IOS present similar or better linear accuracy than conventional impression techniques.

In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners.

METHODS

Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners.

RESULTS

The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4μm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7μm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 μm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 μm) and Medit T710 (13-16 μm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31μm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 μm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 μm), and Medit T710 (20-23 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.

Effect of Scanning Origin Location on Data Accuracy of Abutment Teeth Region in Digital Impression Acquired Using Intraoral Scanner for Removable Partial Denture: A Preliminary In Vitro Study

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of scanning origin location on the data accuracy of removable partial denture (RPD) abutment teeth region in digital impressions acquired by an intraoral scanner. A mandibular partially edentulous model including the following target abutment teeth was used: the left second molar (#37); left first premolar (#34); and right second premolar (#45). The following scanning strategies were tested: the strategy starting from #37 to mesial direction (37M); strategies starting from #34 to mesial (34M) and distal directions (34D), and strategies starting from #45 to mesial (45M) and distal directions (45D). The evaluated measures were trueness, precision, and linear accuracy. One-way and two-way ANOVA were performed for the comparison of trueness and linear accuracy, while Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for the precision comparison (α = 0.05). 45M and 45D showed significantly superior trueness of #34 to 37M and 34D. 45M also showed significantly superior trueness of #45 to 34. 45D showed significantly inferior linear accuracy of #34 and superior linear accuracy of #45 compared to other strategies. It was concluded that scanning origin location would have an impact on data accuracy of RPD abutment teeth region in digital impressions acquired by intraoral scanner.