Evaluation of the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners for the full dentate and partially edentulous complete-arch mandibular casts: An in vitro comparison

Abstract

Statement of problemIntraoral scanners (IOSs) are widely used in dentistry, providing high accuracy in short-range scanning. Nevertheless, when scanning the full dental arch, it remains a challenge. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies reporting the differences in scan accuracy between dental arches with large-span mucosal areas and fully dentate casts or optimal IOS selection for different dental statuses. PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and scanning time of different IOSs for full dentate (FD) and partially edentulous (PE) casts with missing teeth in the #34–#44 range and to determine the IOSs with the optimal clinical adaptability and scanning accuracy for different complete-arch casts. Material and methodsReference scans of two complete-arch (FD and PE) casts were obtained using a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600). Subsequently, the same casts were scanned ten times each by seven IOSs (3Shape Trios 3, CS3600, Planmeca Emerald, iTero Element 5D, Medit i500, BAMBOO B1, and Shining Aoralscan 3), and the scanning time was recorded. The test data were superimposed on the reference scans for the selected areas, and three-dimensional deviations between the reference and test casts (trueness), and between test casts (precision) were determined using reverse engineering software (Geomagic Wrap). The dataset was analyzed using a two-factor analysis of variance with post-hoc Bonferroni tests. ResultsTwo-factor analysis of variance revealed significant differences in accuracy and scanning time for different casts (P<0.001) and IOSs (P<0.001). For the FD cast, the i500 (0.35±0.11 mm trueness) and CS3600 (0.23±0.12 mm precision) performed worse than the remaining scanners. For the PE cast, the BAMBOO B1(0.89±0.58 mm trueness; 0.88± 0.48mm precision) performed worse than the remaining scanners. There were no differences in the accuracy of scanning between the Element 5D and Emerald for both cast types. However, the scanning time differed significantly between the different IOSs (P<0.001). Regardless of the cast type, the fastest and slowest scans were performed by the Trios3 and CS3600 scanners respectively. ConclusionsThe accuracy and scanning time differed between the different IOSs and types of complete-arch casts.