Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners under different conditions in arches: A 3D comparative in vitro analysis.
Abstract
Background
The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has been widely reported. However, studies comparing their performance under different clinical conditions are lacking.
Objectives
The aim of the present study was to compare the trueness and precision of 5 IOSs across 4 anatomically distinct models simulating common clinical conditions: edentulous; abutment; orthodontic (fully dentate); and scanbody scenarios. MATERIAL AND
Methods
An in vitro study was conducted using 4 maxillary models representing different clinical configurations. Five IOSs (AORALSCAN 3, TRIOS 5, ViSIOScan WL, iTero Element 5D Plus, and DEXIS IS 3800) were evaluated. Each model was scanned 10 times with each scanner, and a laboratory desktop scanner was used as the reference for trueness. Accuracy was quantified using the root mean square (RMS) deviation values, with a clinical acceptability threshold of 0.25 mm. Superimposition and deviation analyses were performed using three-dimensional (3D) software, and statistical comparisons were conducted using ANOVA and Scheffé's post hoc test.
Results
Except for ViSIOScan WL in the scanbody model, all tested scanners demonstrated accuracy values below 0.1 mm. Significant differences in trueness and precision were observed both between the scanners and across the clinical scenarios (p < 0.05). Overall, AORALSCAN 3 and iTero Element 5D Plus consistently demonstrated the best performance. The abutment and fully dentate models showed the highest accuracy, whereas the edentulous and scanbody models exhibited greater deviations, particularly for ViSIOScan WL and DEXIS IS 3800.
Conclusions
Despite most IOSs achieving accuracy below 0.1 mm, substantial variability was observed depending on the scanner type and the anatomical context. AORALSCAN 3 and iTero Element 5D Plus consistently demonstrated superior trueness and precision across most models. While the fully dentate model showed no significant differences in trueness among the scanners, it, along with the abutment model, yielded the highest overall accuracy. The edentulous and scanbody models posed greater challenges.