Effect of restoration span on the accuracy of six intraoral scanners and one dental laboratory scanner evaluated by a virtual-fit method.

Accuracy comparison of different intraoral scanners in capturing orthodontic bracket positions: an in vitro evaluation

Aim This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (IOS) in capturing the three-dimensional positions of orthodontic brackets on dental models. Methods Twenty maxillary dental models bonded with MBT stainless steel brackets were scanned using four IOS systems: Primescan, Trios 4, iTero Element 5D, and Medit i700. A high-accuracy laboratory scanner served as the reference standard. Each model was scanned twice with each IOS, yielding 160 datasets. Scans were aligned to the reference using a two-step superimposition protocol, and bracket slot-center deviations were measured in mesiodistal, occlusogingival, buccolingual, and angular dimensions. Trueness, precision, and clinically acceptable deviation rates were analyzed using ANOVA/Kruskal–Wallis tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results Primescan showed the highest trueness, with linear deviations of 0.05–0.07 mm and angular deviations of 0.58–0.62°. Trios 4 demonstrated similar accuracy, remaining within ±0.10mm and ± 1°. iTero Element 5D exhibited greater variation (0.10–0.12mm; 1.12–1.25°), while Medit i700 showed the highest deviations (0.11–0.13mm; 1.29–1.41°). Clinically acceptable deviation rates were 92.5% for Primescan, 88.1% for Trios 4, 76.4% for iTero, and 62.7% for Medit. Precision analysis showed the lowest repeat-scan variability for Primescan (0.03 ± 0.01 mm), whereas Medit displayed the highest variability. ICC values exceeded 0.90 for all scanners. Conclusion Scanner accuracy varied significantly, with Primescan and Trios 4 demonstrating superior trueness and precision. iTero and Medit showed reduced accuracy, particularly in angular measurements. Scanner selection is therefore critical for workflows requiring high-fidelity bracket capture.

Effect of varying intraoral scanner tip size, tooth location and preparation design on the marginal and internal fit of 3D-printed zirconia crowns.

The impact of different cavity design parameters on intraoral scanner accuracy in endocrown restorations.

Influence of Artificial Surface Markers on the Accuracy of Full-arch Digital Impressions in Edentulous Arches: An In Vitro Study

Introduction This in vitro study assessed the accuracy of full-arch edentulous impressions obtained via intraoral scanning using various scanning strategies. This study aimed to evaluate whether the addition of surface markers would enhance scan precision in various anatomical regions of edentulous models, particularly on low-feature and smooth surfaces. Materials and Methods Sixty scans (30 maxillary and 30 mandibular) were performed using an intraoral scanner across three scanning protocols: unmodified (control), composite-resin, and drawn-line markers. Reference scans were obtained using a laboratory scanner. Scans were evaluated in four anatomical regions: the vestibule, residual ridge, palate/lingual area, and overall surface. Deviations were measured using the root mean square, mean deviation, and standard deviation. Two-way analysis of variance, with Tukey’s post hoc test, was used for the statistical analysis. Results The scanning strategy had no significant effect on the residual ridge area (p = .918). The jaw type significantly affected the scanning accuracy in all areas (p < .001), with greater deviations observed in the mandibular scans. Composite-resin and line marker strategies increased the accuracy in the mandibular vestibular and lingual regions. All root mean square error values remained within the clinically acceptable limits, although the numerical differences between the groups were minimal. Conclusion Full-arch intraoral scanning of edentulous models demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy, within the limitations of this in vitro study. Surface markers did not provide a significant advantage in the maxillary scans but may improve scanning performance in mandibular regions. These findings provide methodological insights into scanning performance on smooth and low-feature surfaces and should be interpreted cautiously when extrapolating to clinical intraoral conditions.

Evaluation of Accuracy in Digital Impressions Using Compatible Scanbodies in Bone-Level Implants: An In Vitro Study

Purpose: Digital impression techniques in dentistry have emerged as a precise alternative to conventional methods. The accuracy of this process depends on multiple factors, including the design and material of the scan body, the type of scanner used, and the implant conditions. Materials and Methods: Four types of scan bodies from Dentis, Dentium, Dio, and Novodent were evaluated across 40 samples (10 per group). A reference model was first obtained with an industrial scanner (T-SCAN Hawk 2), and the samples were then scanned with an itraoral scanner (Medit i700). The resualting STL files were aligned in 3-Matic, and geometric deviations from the reference model were measured using the Best-Fit Alignment algorithm. Data were analyzed in SPSS (version 27) using one-way ANOVA with Turkey’s post hoc test, with significance set at 0.05. Results: The mean and standard deviation of Root Mean Square Eror (RMSE) were calculated for four scan bodies: Dentis, Dentinum, Dio, and Novodent. The reference group, Dentis, had a mean RMSE of 0.21± 0.10. Dentium showed a similar RMSE (0.21±0.08), indicating comparable accuracy to Dentis (P˃0.05). In contrast, Dio and Novodent showed lower RMSE values (0.14±0.02 and 0.15±0.06, respectively), indicating higher accuracy, although the differences were not statistically were not statistically significant (P˃0.05). Conclusion: The type of scan body did not significantly affect the accuracy of digital impressions for bone-level implants (P˃0.05).

In Vitro Analysis of the Effect of Intraoral Scan Body Design on the Accuracy of Complete Arch Implant Scanning

Background Achieving a passive and accurate fit in full-arch implant-supported prostheses remains a significant challenge in digital dentistry. Intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) are essential components for transferring implant positions digitally. However, variations in ISB material, geometry, and height may influence the accuracy and precision of intraoral scans. This study aimed to evaluate how different ISB designs affect the trueness and precision of digital impressions in a completely edentulous maxillary arch with multiple implants. Methods An in vitro model with 8 implants was scanned using the Primescan intraoral scanner. Five ISB configurations were tested: four from different manufacturers (ELOS, GT Medical, ZIACOM, and 3Shape) and a fifth mixed group with alternating ISBs. A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used as the reference standard. Accuracy was assessed through linear (Euclidean distance) and angular (relative angulation) measurements. Statistical comparisons included ANOVA, pairwise analysis, and multivariate regression. Results Significant differences were found among ISBs in both trueness and precision. ZIACOM showed the best precision overall, particularly in repeated linear (21 ± 16 μm) and angular measurements (0.102± 0.081 degrees), while ELOS displayed the lowest deviation in linear distance (40 ± 33 μm). The mixed ISB group yielded the highest variability and the most extreme errors. Although mean values were within clinically acceptable limits, maximum deviations reached 223 µm and 1.2°, potentially compromising passive fit. Conclusions ISB selection significantly affects the accuracy and reproducibility of intraoral scans in full-arch implant scenarios. Using a consistent ISB system is recommended, as mixing components from different manufacturers may increase variability and compromise the reliability of digital impressions in complex rehabilitations.