Abstract
BackgroundThis in vivo study evaluated the difference of two well-known intraoral scanners used in dentistry, namely iTero (Align Technology) and TRIOS (3Shape).MethodsThirty-two participants underwent intraoral scans with TRIOS and iTero scanners, as well as conventional alginate impressions. The scans obtained with the two intraoral scanners were compared with each other and were also compared with the corresponding model scans by means of three-dimensional surface analysis. The average differences between the two intraoral scans on the surfaces were evaluated by color-mapping. The average differences in the three-dimensional direction between each intraoral scans and its corresponding model scan were calculated at all points on the surfaces.ResultsThe average differences between the two intraoral scanners were 0.057 mm at the maxilla and 0.069 mm at the mandible. Color histograms showed that local deviations between the two scanners occurred in the posterior area. As for difference in the three-dimensional direction, there was no statistically significant difference between two scanners.ConclusionsAlthough there were some deviations in visible inspection, there was no statistical significance between the two intraoral scanners.
Highlights
This in vivo study evaluated the difference of two well-known intraoral scanners used in dentistry, namely iTero (Align Technology) and TRIOS (3Shape)
The use of digital models alleviates many of the challenges posed by plaster models made from conventional impressions, which include the burden of storage, the risk of damage or breakage, and the difficulties in sharing the data with other clinicians involved in the patients’ care [1, 2]
Intraoral scanning with TRIOS and iTero Intraoral scans of 32 participants were included in the present study
Summary
This in vivo study evaluated the difference of two well-known intraoral scanners used in dentistry, namely iTero (Align Technology) and TRIOS (3Shape). Digital dental models can be created through either indirect or direct techniques. Indirect methods involve laser scanning or computed tomographic imaging of the alginate impressions or plaster models, and direct methods involve intraoral scanners. With the introduction of chairside intraoral scanners, interest in obtaining. After the introduction of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) concepts into dental applications by Dr Francois Duret at the Chicago Midwinter Meeting in 1989 [6, 7], several intraoral scanners have been introduced. A few intraoral scanners have been released on the market, including the iTero (Align Technologies), TRIOS (3Shape), True Definition (3M ESPE), CEREC Omnicam (Sirona), and CS 3600 (Carestream Dental) [8, 9]
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
