Influence of apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners with various focal lengths and scanning technologies.

Abstract

Limited studies have reported the influence of finish line location on the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). Focal length is a hardware characteristic of IOSs. Whether there is a relationship between scanning accuracy of tooth preparations with the finish located at different apical positions and focal length and IOS technology or system remains uncertain. The purpose of the present in vitro study was to assess the influence of the apical finish line location of tooth preparations on the accuracy of 4 IOSs with various focal lengths and scanning technologies. A maxillary typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710). Afterwards, a removable die was created on the prepared first molar of the virtual cast and duplicated to create 4 dies with different apical finish line locations: 2- or 1-mm supragingival, 0-mm or equigingival, and -0.5-mm or intracrevicular. The cast and die designs were additively fabricated (Asiga Pro 4K with Keystone Model Ultra). Each die was independently scanned by using the same laboratory scanner (reference scans). Four groups were created: TRIOS 5, i700, iTero, and Primescan. Four subgroups were developed depending on the apical position of the finish line (n=15). In each subgroup, the cast was assembled by positioning the corresponding die into the cast. The cast was then scanned by using the corresponding IOS. The reference scans were used as a control to compute the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the preparation and margin of the preparation areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum test were used to analyze precision (α=.05). Trueness discrepancies in the preparation area were found among the groups (P=.010) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P<.001). The -0.5mm location obtained significantly worse trueness in the preparation area. The TRIOS 5 and i700 obtained the best trueness in the preparation area. Trueness discrepancies in the margin area were found among the groups (P=.002) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction between group×subgroup (P=.004). The -0.5mm location obtained the worst trueness in the margin area. The i700 and Primescan obtained the best trueness in the margin area. Precision discrepancies were found in the preparation area (P<.001). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best precision in the preparation area (P=.001). Precision discrepancies in the margin area were obtained (P<.001). The 1-mm subgroup obtained the best precision (P=.001). The apical position of the finish line of the tooth preparation tested affected the trueness and precision of the IOSs tested.