title: Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems.
abstract: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions taken by different intraoral and laboratory scanners. For this purpose a synthetic jaw model with prepared tooth was scanned using intraoral scanning systems: 3D Progress (MHT S.P.A., IT - MHT Optic Research AG, CH); True Definition (3M ESPE, USA); Trios (3Shape A/S, DNK); CEREC AC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam (Sirona Dental System GmbH, DE); Planscan (Planmeca, FIN); and laboratory scanning systems: s600 ARTI (Zirkonzahn GmbH, IT); Imetric Iscan D104, CH); D900 (3Shape A/S, DNK); Zfx Evolution (Zfx GmbH, DE) (each n=10). Reference-scanning was done by ATOS Core (GOM mbH, DE). The resulting digital impressions were superimposed with the master-scan. The measured deviations by points (trueness) for intraoral scanners were: True Definition - 15.0±2.85 μm (single tooth) and 45.0±19.11 µm (full arch); Trios - 17.1±1.44 and 58.8±27.36 µm; CEREC AC Bluecam - 22.3±5.58 and 20.3±4.13 µm; CEREC Omnicam - 25.0±1.06 and 78.5±27.03 µm; 3D Progress - 26.4±5.75 and 213.5±47.44 µm; Planscan - 54.6±11.58 and 205.2±21.73 µm. For laboratory scanners: Imetric Iscan D104 - 10.2±0.87 μm (stamp) and 65.3±5.36 µm (full arch); Zfx Evolution - 12.8±0.83 and 66.4±2.80 µm; Zirkonzahn s600 ARTI - 15.1±1.36 and 65.9±1.33 µm; 3Shape D900 - 19.9±0.53 and 63.6±0.83 µm. Precision was: True Definition - 19.9±2.77 μm (single tooth) and 40.1±11.04 µm (full arch); Trios - 25.8±2.49 and 69.9±18.95 µm; CEREC AC Bluecam - 36.4±2.78 and 46.6±3.44 µm; CEREC Omnicam - 37.6±3.29 and 76.2±13.36 µm; 3D Progress - 76.9±11.04 and 102.2±8.06 µm; Planscan - 74.3±6.58 and 93.9±15.32 µm. For laboratory scanners: Imetric Iscan D104 - 11.7±4.39 μm (stamp) and 31.2±5.58 µm (full arch); Zfx Evolution - 8.4±0.49 and 24.8±3.98 µm; Zirkonzahn s600 ARTI - 13.4±6.74 and 20.7±4.34 µm; 3Shape D900 - 10.4±0.93 and 17.8±0.62 µm. Whole deviation of the dental arch was: 3D Progress - 98.0±5.70 µm; True Definition - 47.1±9.61 µm; Trios - 59.6±18.77 µm; Omnicam - 77.8±8.79 µm; Planscan - 107.9±1.58 µm; Bluecam - 46.8±1.22 µm; Imetric - 36.4±1.62 µm; Zfx Evolution - 29.5±0.58 µm; S600 ARTI - 35.0±1.04 µm; 3Shape D900 - 32.7±0.29 µm. The results indicate that digital impressions provide enough accuracy for clinical application.
authors.affiliation: Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
authors.forename: A N
authors.initials: AN
authors.lastname: Ryakhovskiy
authors.affiliation: Central Research Institute of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
authors.forename: V V
authors.initials: VV
authors.lastname: Kostyukova
mesh_terms: D003724:Dental Arch / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D003761:Dental Impression Technique / Q000295:instrumentation*; D006801:Humans; D021621:Imaging, Three-Dimensional / Q000295:instrumentation*; D016876:Metal Ceramic Alloys; D061848:Optical Imaging / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014070:Tooth / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*
chemical_list: D016876:Metal Ceramic Alloys