Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2017 Jun 2;17(1):92.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4.

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Mario Imburgia  1 , Silvia Logozzo  2   3 , Uli Hauschild  4 , Giovanni Veronesi  5 , Carlo Mangano  6 , Francesco Guido Mangano  7
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Mario Imburgia et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: Until now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants.

Methods: Two gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out.

Results: In the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (45.8 ± 1.6μm), followed by Trios3® (50.2 ± 2.5μm), Omnicam® (58.8 ± 1.6μm) and TrueDefinition® (61.4 ± 3.0μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®. In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (60.6 ± 11.7μm), followed by Omnicam® (66.4 ± 3.9μm), Trios3® (67.2 ± 6.9μm) and TrueDefinition® (106.4 ± 23.1μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (19.5 ± 3.1μm), followed by Trios3® (24.5 ± 3.7μm), CS3600® (24.8 ± 4.6μm) and Omnicam® (26.3 ± 1.5μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (31.5 ± 9.8μm), followed by Omnicam® (57.2 ± 9.1μm), CS3600® (65.5 ± 16.7μm) and TrueDefinition® (75.3 ± 43.8μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3®.

Conclusions: Significant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have important clinical implications.

Keywords: Accuracy; Intraoral scanners; Oral implants; Precision; Trueness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Two different gypsum models were prepared: a partially edentulous maxilla, with three implant analogues in positions #23, #24 and #26, and a fully edentulous maxilla, with the same implant analogues in positions #11, #14, #16, #21, #24 and #26
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Four different IOS (CS 3600®, Carestream, Rochester, NY, USA; Trios 3®, 3-Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark; Cerec Omnicam®, Sirona Dental System GmbH, Bensheim, Germany; True Definition®, 3M Espe, S. Paul, MN, USA) were compared in this study, with the purpose to investigate their trueness and precision in oral implantology
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Trueness in the partially edentulous maxilla, occlusal view. The best single result obtained with each device were: (a) CS 3600® 44 ± 44 μm; (b) Trios 3® 48 ± 52 μm; (c) Cerec Omnicam® 57 ± 66 μm; (d) True Definition® 57 ± 52 μm
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Trueness in the fully edentulous maxilla, occlusal view. The best single result obtained with each device were: (a) CS 3600® 50 ± 81 μm; (b) Trios 3® 57 ± 89 μm; (c) Cerec Omnicam® 63 ± 87 μm; (d) True Definition® 84 ± 89 μm
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Precision in the partially edentulous maxilla, occlusal view. The best single result obtained with each device were: (a) CS 3600® 19 ± 50 μm; (b) Trios 3® 21 ± 42 μm; (c) Cerec Omnicam® 25 ± 53 μm; (d) True Definition® 15 ± 28 μm
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Precision in the fully edentulous maxilla, occlusal view. The best single result obtained with each device were: (a) CS 3600® 51 ± 75 μm; (b) Trios 3® 24 ± 45 μm; (c) Cerec Omnicam® 50 ± 74 μm; (d) True Definition® 42 ± 44 μm
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101–129. - PubMed
    1. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313–321. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Makynen A. Recent advances in dental optics – Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Optic Lasers Eng. 2014;54(3):203–221. doi: 10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017. - DOI
    1. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14((10):7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1113–1118. doi: 10.1111/clr.12234. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances