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
. 2022 Apr 26;22(1):140.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4.

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

Ivett Róth  1 , Alexandra Czigola  2 , Dóra Fehér  2 , Viktória Vitai  2 , Gellért Levente Joós-Kovács  2 , Péter Hermann  2 , Judit Borbély  2 , Bálint Vecsei  2
Affiliations

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

Ivett Róth et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters.

Methods: In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs.

Results: The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study.

Conclusion: The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019).

Keywords: Digital impression-taking; Intraoral scanner; Validation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) maxillary model that was used as a reference
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The reference cast was scanned by three undergraduate dental students who had no previous experience in intraoral scanning
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The five different parameters measured for the accuracy assessment of the intraoral scanners
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Ranges of limits and converted points based on area size
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Summary points based on our measurements
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Results based on the summary chart
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Results of the comparative assessment (weight of the scanner’s handpiece)
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Results of the comparative assessment (circumference of the its head)
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Results of the average in vitro scanning time
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Results based on scanning continuity
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
Results based on accuracy (trueness + precision)
Fig. 12
Fig. 12
Results of the average in vivo scanning time for full arches
Fig. 13
Fig. 13
Results of the average in vivo scanning time for quadrants\
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fasbinder DJ. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent. 2013;26(3):115–120. - PubMed
    1. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101–29. - PubMed
    1. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):111–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources