TL;DR
Both Medit i900 and Dexis IS 3800W provided clinically acceptable accuracy for Kennedy Class I mandibular arches, and accuracy was influenced by scanner type, tip size, and scanned area.
Cavity depth and tooth structure thickness significantly influenced the accuracy of intraoral scanners in endocrown restorations and significantly influenced the accuracy of intraoral scanners in endocrown restorations.
Evaluating how different ISB designs affect the trueness and precision of digital impressions in a completely edentulous maxillary arch with multiple implants found significant differences were found among ISBs in both trueness and precision.
Introduction This in vitro study assessed the accuracy of full-arch edentulous impressions obtained via intraoral scanning using various scanning strategies. This study aimed to evaluate whether the addition of surface markers would enhance scan precision in various anatomical regions of edentulous models, particularly on low-feature and smooth surfaces. Materials and Methods Sixty scans (30 maxillary and 30 mandibular) were performed using an intraoral scanner across three scanning protocols: unmodified (control), composite-resin, and drawn-line markers. Reference scans were obtained using a laboratory scanner. Scans were evaluated in four anatomical regions: the vestibule, residual ridge, palate/lingual area, and overall surface. Deviations were measured using the root mean square, mean deviation, and standard deviation. Two-way analysis of variance, with Tukey’s post hoc test, was used for the statistical analysis. Results The scanning strategy had no significant effect on the residual ridge area (p = .918). The jaw type significantly affected the scanning accuracy in all areas (p < .001), with greater deviations observed in the mandibular scans. Composite-resin and line marker strategies increased the accuracy in the mandibular vestibular and lingual regions. All root mean square error values remained within the clinically acceptable limits, although the numerical differences between the groups were minimal. Conclusion Full-arch intraoral scanning of edentulous models demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy, within the limitations of this in vitro study. Surface markers did not provide a significant advantage in the maxillary scans but may improve scanning performance in mandibular regions. These findings provide methodological insights into scanning performance on smooth and low-feature surfaces and should be interpreted cautiously when extrapolating to clinical intraoral conditions.
The type of scan body did not significantly affect the accuracy of digital impressions for bone-level implants and the mean and standard deviation of Root Mean Square Eror (RMSE) were calculated.
Aim This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (IOS) in capturing the three-dimensional positions of orthodontic brackets on dental models. Methods Twenty maxillary dental models bonded with MBT stainless steel brackets were scanned using four IOS systems: Primescan, Trios 4, iTero Element 5D, and Medit i700. A high-accuracy laboratory scanner served as the reference standard. Each model was scanned twice with each IOS, yielding 160 datasets. Scans were aligned to the reference using a two-step superimposition protocol, and bracket slot-center deviations were measured in mesiodistal, occlusogingival, buccolingual, and angular dimensions. Trueness, precision, and clinically acceptable deviation rates were analyzed using ANOVA/Kruskal–Wallis tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results Primescan showed the highest trueness, with linear deviations of 0.05–0.07 mm and angular deviations of 0.58–0.62°. Trios 4 demonstrated similar accuracy, remaining within ±0.10mm and ± 1°. iTero Element 5D exhibited greater variation (0.10–0.12mm; 1.12–1.25°), while Medit i700 showed the highest deviations (0.11–0.13mm; 1.29–1.41°). Clinically acceptable deviation rates were 92.5% for Primescan, 88.1% for Trios 4, 76.4% for iTero, and 62.7% for Medit. Precision analysis showed the lowest repeat-scan variability for Primescan (0.03 ± 0.01 mm), whereas Medit displayed the highest variability. ICC values exceeded 0.90 for all scanners. Conclusion Scanner accuracy varied significantly, with Primescan and Trios 4 demonstrating superior trueness and precision. iTero and Medit showed reduced accuracy, particularly in angular measurements. Scanner selection is therefore critical for workflows requiring high-fidelity bracket capture.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.
