Abstract
Aim To measure the trueness and precision under repeatable conditions for different intraoral scanners (IOSs) when scanning fully edentulous arch with multiple implants. Materials and Methods Three IOSs and one industrial scanner were used to scan one edentulous master cast containing five implant scan bodies and three spheres. The cast was scanned thirty times with each scanner device. All scans were analyzed in the inspect software, and three-dimensional locations of the implants and the interarch distance between the spheres were measured. The values were compared to measurements made with one coordinate measuring machine (true value). One-way ANOVA was used to calculate the differences between IOSs and in comparison with the true value. Results Significant differences were found between all IOSs. For the implant measurements, Trios 3 had the lowest trueness (≤114 μm), followed by Trios 3 mono (≤63 μm) and Itero element (≤−41 μm). Trios had the lowest precision (≤135 μm), followed by Itero element (≤101 μm) and Trios 3 mono (≤100 μm). With regard to the interarch distance measurements, Trios 3 had the lowest trueness (≤68 μm), followed by Trios 3 mono (≤45 μm) and Itero element (≤40 μm). Trios 3 had the lowest precision (≤206 μm), followed by Itero element (≤124 μm) and Trios 3 mono (≤111 μm). Conclusion The results from this in vitro study suggest that precision is low for the tested IOS devices when scanning fully edentulous arches with multiple implants.
Highlights
One of the most recent techniques introduced to dentistry is the ability to digitize the oral cavity and create a threedimensional virtual model; this device is known as an intraoral scanner (IOS). e first appearance of the intraoral scanners (IOSs) was in 1980
Several studies have shown that IOS devices have difficulty in scanning full dental arch or edentulous arch with multiple implants and generating accurate virtual models [3,4,5,6,7,8]. e sources that could generate errors are scanning software process, oral environment, scanning protocol, and user’s experience. e main reason for enhanced errors on longer span scans could be the scanning method found in most IOS devices. e scanners acquire single images that are stitched with other images to produce a virtual 3D model of the object being scanned. e technique is referred to as stitching; software process known as the best fit algorithm, can introduce errors into large scan distance such as the fullarch situation [6, 9, 10]
Normal distribution was found by Shapiro– Wilks test in all intraoral scanners except the Atos scanner
Summary
One of the most recent techniques introduced to dentistry is the ability to digitize the oral cavity and create a threedimensional virtual model; this device is known as an intraoral scanner (IOS). e first appearance of the IOS was in 1980. Several studies have shown that IOS devices have difficulty in scanning full dental arch or edentulous arch with multiple implants and generating accurate virtual models [3,4,5,6,7,8]. E current study focused on assessing the trueness and precision of three different intraoral scanners on the scanning edentulous jaw with multiple implants. Different methods have been developed by researchers to assess the trueness and precision of IOS devices. E aim of this present study was to measure the trueness and precision under repeatable condition of different intraoral scanner devices on scanning a fully edentulous arch with multiple implants. Some studies employed the best fit alignment method to assess full-arch scans with teeth or implants [4, 7, 8, 16]. e method presents a color map data with threshold colors to visualize and measure differences between two scans. e current study used a different method: here, five cylinders (scan bodies) and three spheres were used as landmarks, making it possible to calculate only eight points in the scan, instead of comparing thousands of points from the scan data. e aim of this present study was to measure the trueness and precision under repeatable condition of different intraoral scanner devices on scanning a fully edentulous arch with multiple implants. e null hypothesis was that there would be no significant differences between the intraoral scanner devices in comparison with the true value (coordinate measuring machine)
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
