Abstract
The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy (trueness/precision) of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic reference aid served as a reference dataset. Four digital impressions (Trios3Cart, Trios3Pod, Trios4Pod, and Primescan) and one CVI were investigated in five patients. Scan data were analyzed using three-dimensional analysis software and conventional models using a coordinate measurement machine. The transfer accuracy between the reference aid and the impression methods were compared. Differences with p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Overall, mean ± standard deviation (SD) transfer accuracy ranged from 24.6 ± 17.7 µm (CVI) to 204.5 ± 182.1 µm (Trios3Pod). The Primescan yielded the lowest deviation for digital impressions (33.8 ± 31.5 µm), followed by Trios4Pod (65.2 ± 52.9 µm), Trios3Cart (84.7 ± 120.3 µm), and Trios3Pod. Within the limitations of this study, current IOS equipped with the latest software versions demonstrated less deviation for short-span distances compared with the conventional impression technique. However, for long-span distances, the conventional impression technique provided the lowest deviation. Overall, currently available IOS systems demonstrated improvement regarding transfer accuracy of full-arch scans in patients.
Highlights
In recent years, digitalization has gained increasing importance in daily dental practice [1]
The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI)
Findings from this study indicate that, at least for the Trios scanner, hardware has a significant influence on the transfer accuracy of full-arch scans
Summary
Digitalization has gained increasing importance in daily dental practice [1]. For full-arch scans, still a higher transfer accuracy has been described for conventional impression (CVI) techniques [9–11]. Several clinical studies investigated the accuracy of full-arch scans for different IOS systems using a conventional impression or a plaster model as reference [12–16]. Even anterior structures have already been recorded using an extraoral scanner [18]; the entire jaw of a real patient cannot be scanned using a high precision laboratory scanner to obtain a reference dataset To overcome these limitations, two independent clinical studies developed a reference aid for the investigation of the transfer accuracy of fuJ.llC-lainr.cMh esdc.a2n02s0u, 9n,dxeFrOcRliPnEiEcaRlRcEoVnIdEiWtions [10,17]. Two independent clinical studies developed a reference aid for the investigation of the transfer accuracy of fuJ.llC-lainr.cMh esdc.a2n02s0u, 9n,dxeFrOcRliPnEiEcaRlRcEoVnIdEiWtions [10,17] They reported, for the first time, real deviations in d2igoifta9l and CVI techniques considering patient movement, saliva, and lack of space [10,17]. Differences with p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
