IADR Abstract Archives
Full Arch Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners
Objectives: This in vitro study evaluated the full arch accuracy of four intraoral scanners based on trueness and precision measurements when compared against a known reference (trueness) and when compared against each other (precision).
Methods: Four intraoral scanners were evaluated: CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, TRIOS Color, and Carestream CS 3500. A full arch reference model was created and printed by Envisiontec, Inc. in E-Dentsone 3SP® Peach. The reference model was digitized using the Freedom HD laboratory based white light LED scanner. The printed reference model was scanned 10 times with each intraoral scanner. The digital STL files from each scanner were then registered to the reference file and compared differences in trueness and precision using Materialise 3-matic® 3D modeling software. Additionally, scanning time was recorded for each scan performed. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test, were used to detect differences for trueness and precision. Differences in scanning time were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s Test.
Results: There were significant differences in trueness or precision between the scanners. Carestream CS3500 had worse overall trueness and precision as compared to Bluecam and TRIOS. The fourth brand, Omnicam, had moderate trueness and precision. All of the scanners tended to underestimate the size of the reference file, with exception of the Carestream CS3500 which was more variable. The majority of error was in the posterior aspects of the arch. The video based scanners (Omnicam) had the fastest scanning times.
Conclusions: The trueness and precision errors associated with the intraoral scanners may have negative impact on the clinical application for full arch scanning. Additional research is needed in order to evaluate the clinical ramifications of these errors.
Methods: Four intraoral scanners were evaluated: CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, TRIOS Color, and Carestream CS 3500. A full arch reference model was created and printed by Envisiontec, Inc. in E-Dentsone 3SP® Peach. The reference model was digitized using the Freedom HD laboratory based white light LED scanner. The printed reference model was scanned 10 times with each intraoral scanner. The digital STL files from each scanner were then registered to the reference file and compared differences in trueness and precision using Materialise 3-matic® 3D modeling software. Additionally, scanning time was recorded for each scan performed. Wilcoxon Signed Rank test and Kruskal-Wallis test, were used to detect differences for trueness and precision. Differences in scanning time were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s Test.
Results: There were significant differences in trueness or precision between the scanners. Carestream CS3500 had worse overall trueness and precision as compared to Bluecam and TRIOS. The fourth brand, Omnicam, had moderate trueness and precision. All of the scanners tended to underestimate the size of the reference file, with exception of the Carestream CS3500 which was more variable. The majority of error was in the posterior aspects of the arch. The video based scanners (Omnicam) had the fastest scanning times.
Conclusions: The trueness and precision errors associated with the intraoral scanners may have negative impact on the clinical application for full arch scanning. Additional research is needed in order to evaluate the clinical ramifications of these errors.