Jul 2026· E -journal of dentistry· pp.
106915
· 1 citation· 50 references
Medicine
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the effect of restoration span on scanner-related restoration fit obtained with six intraoral scanners and one dental laboratory scanner.
Methods
A maxillary resin model with eight abutments was scanned with an ATOSQ reference scanner and subsequently with the Aoralscan Elite, Mediti900, Primescan2, R2i3, RunyesV6, and TRIOS6 intraoral scanners, and the AutoScan-DSEXPro(H) laboratory scanner (n=12 per test scanner). Complete-arch, four-unit bridge, and single-unit restorations were digitally designed. The designed restoration meshes were superimposed on the reference scan using a virtual-fit approach. Marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were calculated for each scanner in the metrology software. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed models.
Results
Mean MG ranged from 15-30 µm for single crowns, 16-44 µm for bridges, and 37-91 µm for complete-arch restorations. MG was significantly higher for bridges than for single crowns for all scanners except AutoScan-DSEXPro(H) and Aoralscan Elite. Complete-arch restorations showed significantly higher MG and AMD than bridges for all scanners, although mean MG remained below the clinically derived, model-based threshold of 100 µm. However, several R2i3 and TRIOS6 scans exceeded this MG threshold. Mean AMD exceeded the threshold for RunyesV6, R2i3, and TRIOS6 in complete-arch restorations.
Conclusions
Restoration span is a critical determinant of scanning accuracy, particularly when moving from four-unit bridges to complete-arch restorations, even for the laboratory scanner. The virtual-fit method enables robust, clinically interpretable comparison of scanner accuracy across restoration types.
CLINICAL
Significance
Intraoral scanner selection should consider the intended restoration span. While all evaluated scanners performed well for short-span restorations, only some maintained high accuracy for complete-arch tooth-borne restorations. Because these findings are based on an in vitro study, scanners with lower complete-arch accuracy should be used with caution in clinical practice.
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.
Ali Furkan Karakoyunlu, Ozum Dasdemir Ozkan· The Annals of Clinical and A...· 0 citations
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.
Yunus Emre Ozden, Idil Ozden, Zeynep Ozkurt Kayahan et al.· American Journal of Dentistr...· 0 citations
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.
Emel Arslan, H. Yemenoğlu· Journal of Applied Dentistry...· 0 citations
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.
A. Fathi, Ehsan Ghasemi, Seyyed Parsa Tabatabaei et al.· Journal of Oral Implantology· 0 citations
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.
Fernando Sanclemente-Reina, Carlos Serrano-Granger, Andrea Santamaría-Laorden et al.· International Dental Journal· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.