Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study

Abstract

BackgroundUntil now, a few studies have addressed the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in implantology. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy of 5 different IOSs in the impressions of single and multiple implants, and to compare them.MethodsPlaster models were prepared, representative of a partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) to be restored with a single crown (SC) and a partial prosthesis (PP), and a totally edentulous maxilla (TEM) to be restored with a full-arch (FA). These models were scanned with a desktop scanner, to capture reference models (RMs), and with 5 IOSs (CS 3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, DWIO®, Emerald®); 10 scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into a reverse-engineering software where they were superimposed on the corresponding RMs, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A statistical analysis was performed.ResultsIn the SC, CS 3600® had the best trueness (15.2\u2009±\u20090.8\u2009μm), followed by Trios3® (22.3\u2009±\u20090.5\u2009μm), DWIO® (27.8\u2009±\u20093.2\u2009μm), Omnicam® (28.4\u2009±\u20094.5\u2009μm), Emerald® (43.1\u2009±\u200911.5\u2009μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best trueness (23\u2009±\u20091.1\u2009μm), followed by Trios3® (28.5\u2009±\u20090.5\u2009μm), Omnicam® (38.1\u2009±\u20098.8\u2009μm), Emerald® (49.3\u2009±\u20095.5\u2009μm), DWIO® (49.8\u2009±\u20095\u2009μm). In the FA, CS 3600® had the best trueness (44.9\u2009±\u20098.9\u2009μm), followed by Trios3® (46.3\u2009±\u20094.9\u2009μm), Emerald® (66.3\u2009±\u20095.6\u2009μm), Omnicam® (70.4\u2009±\u200911.9\u2009μm), DWIO® (92.1\u2009±\u200924.1\u2009μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in trueness was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). In the SC, CS 3600® had the best precision (11.3\u2009±\u20091.1\u2009μm), followed by Trios3® (15.2\u2009±\u20090.8\u2009μm), DWIO® (27.1\u2009±\u200910.7\u2009μm), Omnicam® (30.6\u2009±\u20093.3\u2009μm), Emerald® (32.8\u2009±\u200910.7\u2009μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best precision (17\u2009±\u20092.3\u2009μm), followed by Trios3® (21\u2009±\u20091.9\u2009μm), Emerald® (29.9\u2009±\u20098.9\u2009μm), DWIO® (34.8\u2009±\u200910.8\u2009μm), Omnicam® (43.2\u2009±\u20099.4\u2009μm). In the FA, Trios3® had the best precision (35.6\u2009±\u20093.4\u2009μm), followed by CS 3600® (35.7\u2009±\u20094.3\u2009μm), Emerald® (61.5\u2009±\u200918.1\u2009μm), Omnicam® (89.3\u2009±\u200914\u2009μm), DWIO® (111\u2009±\u200924.8\u2009μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in precision was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA).ConclusionsThe IOSs showed significant differences between them, both in trueness and in precision. The mathematical error increased in the transition from SC to PP up to FA, both in trueness than in precision.