Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

BACKGROUND This study used an edentulous mandibular resin model with 6 parallel osteotomy sites and aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 10 digital impressions using 3 intraoral scanners, the 3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan, using Medit Link v3.3.2 software. MATERIAL AND METHODS A model simulating a patient's lower jaw was surgically prepared at 6 parallel sites (implant osteotomy), allowing placement of 6 implant analogues. Matrix-Direct transfer abutments were attached to the analogs, and a reference scan was obtained using a CeramilMap 600 extraoral scanner. Three intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i700, and Primescan) made 10 digital impressions of each model. The data obtained were superimposed and compared using software (Medit Link 3.3.2) to evaluate accuracy. Mean values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. Differences were considered significant at a P value of less than 0.05. RESULTS The TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation for precision (37.8±4.53 μm) and trueness (54.9±11 μm), followed by Medit i700 (precision 40.6±4.17 μm, trueness 60.5±10.9 μm), whereas the highest deviation (precision: 49.1±8.31 μm, trueness: 72.3±10.4 μm) was reported when Primescan intraoral scanner was used for recording impressions of full arch implants. When the 3 intraoral scanners were compared, a statistically significant difference was observed in terms of precision (P<0.005) and trueness (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner displayed the lowest deviation values for precision and trueness (more accurate), followed by Medit i700 and Primescan intraoral scanners. However, deviation values of all scanners were within clinically acceptable limits.

Figure 1

Graphical summary of the workflow. Figure created using MS PowerPoint, version 20H2 (OS build 19042,1466), windows 11 Pro, Microsoft Corp).

Figure 2

Six implants analogs placed on resin edentulous jaw model and Matrix-Direct transfer abutments attached. Photographs taken using digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) (Canon EOS 700D) with 100-mm macro lens) with/without ring flash.

Figure 3

Frontal view of the 3D digital impression. Images generated through Medit Link 3.3.2 and Medit design 2.1.4 software (Snip and Sketch 10.2008.3001.0, Microsoft Corp).

Figure 4

Color plot depicting 3D deviation in the precision of the (A) TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner; (B) Medit i700; and (C) Primescan intraoral scanners. Color plot depicting 3D deviation in the trueness of the (D) TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner; (E) Medit i700; and (F) Primescan intraoral scanners. Red represents displacement in the outward direction/positive direction, whereas blue represents displacement in the inward direction/negative aspect. The green color represents a perfect alignment between the superimposed images. Images generated through Medit Link 3.3.2 and Medit design 2.1.4 software (Snip and Sketch 10.2008.3001.0, Microsoft Corp).

Figure 5

Precision values of tested intraoral scanners. Figure created using MS Excel, version 20H2 (OS build 19042,1466), windows 11 Pro, Microsoft Corp).

Figure 6

Trueness values of tested intraoral scanners. Figure created using MS Excel, version 20H2 (OS build 19042,1466), windows 11 Pro, Microsoft Corp).