IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison between three intraoral scanners
Objectives: To compare between 3Shape Trios3 M edit i700 and Eighteeth helios 600 in terms of accuracy,
speed, cost, ease of user interface, spread in the Jordanian market, communication between
clinic and lab, ease of scanning and indication.
Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 15 dentists (who are using intra-oral scanners) and 15 dental technologists (who receive digital impressions) inquiring about intraoral scanners in terms of popularity, accuracy, reliability and their preferences.
Results: The majority of the dentists in the questionnaire were aged between 41-50 years (60%). Most of the dentists (34%) had 1-5 years of clinical experience. Great majority of dentists (87%) preferred using solely digital and the remaining (13%) preferred using both. 3Shape Trios3 and Medit i700 were equally commonly-used (33%). The majority of dentists (93%) were satisfied with the final results of the intraoral scanner. Most of dental technologists had 1-5 years of experience (33%). A percentage of (47%) of dental technologist found that 3Shape Trios3 was the most accurate, while Medit i700 got (33%) and Eighteeth helios 600 came lastly with 20% due to the lower price. A high percentage of dental technologists (74%) preferred the digital dentistry (such as: scan, design and mill) and (26%) of the dental technologists preferred conventional. The problems of our research came as the cost being number one problem, associated software and hardware was the second problem.
Conclusions: Dental technicians and dentists preferred intraoral scanners over conventional impression. 3Shape Trios3 and Medit i700 scanners were the most used. Learning to use scanners does not take much time. Dentists preferred Eighteeth helios 600 because of the lower price. Intraoral scanners are very reliable but do not replace the conventional impression techniques. High cost and associated software and hardware were the drawbacks of the intraoral scanners use.
speed, cost, ease of user interface, spread in the Jordanian market, communication between
clinic and lab, ease of scanning and indication.
Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 15 dentists (who are using intra-oral scanners) and 15 dental technologists (who receive digital impressions) inquiring about intraoral scanners in terms of popularity, accuracy, reliability and their preferences.
Results: The majority of the dentists in the questionnaire were aged between 41-50 years (60%). Most of the dentists (34%) had 1-5 years of clinical experience. Great majority of dentists (87%) preferred using solely digital and the remaining (13%) preferred using both. 3Shape Trios3 and Medit i700 were equally commonly-used (33%). The majority of dentists (93%) were satisfied with the final results of the intraoral scanner. Most of dental technologists had 1-5 years of experience (33%). A percentage of (47%) of dental technologist found that 3Shape Trios3 was the most accurate, while Medit i700 got (33%) and Eighteeth helios 600 came lastly with 20% due to the lower price. A high percentage of dental technologists (74%) preferred the digital dentistry (such as: scan, design and mill) and (26%) of the dental technologists preferred conventional. The problems of our research came as the cost being number one problem, associated software and hardware was the second problem.
Conclusions: Dental technicians and dentists preferred intraoral scanners over conventional impression. 3Shape Trios3 and Medit i700 scanners were the most used. Learning to use scanners does not take much time. Dentists preferred Eighteeth helios 600 because of the lower price. Intraoral scanners are very reliable but do not replace the conventional impression techniques. High cost and associated software and hardware were the drawbacks of the intraoral scanners use.