Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology.


METHODS
Two stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cylinders screwed on. The models were digitized with an industrial scanner (IScan D104I®) used as a reference, and with four intraoral scanners (Trios®; CS 3500®; Zfx Intrascan®; Planscan®). Five scans were taken for each model, using each different intraoral scanner. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagics 2012®), where intraoral scans were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate general trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to evaluate general precision. General trueness and precision of any scanner were compared by model type, through an ANOVA model including scanner, model and their interaction. Finally, the distance and angles between simulated implants were measured in each group, and compared to those of the reference model, to evaluate local trueness.


RESULTS
In the partially edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best general trueness (47.8 μm) and precision (40.8 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.2 μm, precision 51.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 117.0 μm, precision 126.2 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 233.4 μm, precision 219.8 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. In the totally edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best performance in terms of general trueness (63.2 μm) and precision (55.2 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.6 μm, precision 67.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 103.0 μm, precision 112.4 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 253.4 μm, precision 204.2 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. Local trueness values confirmed these results.


CONCLUSIONS
Although no differences in trueness and precision were found between partially and totally edentulous models, statistically significant differences were found between the different scanners. Further studies are required to confirm these results.
Department of Surgical and Morphological Science, Dental School, Insubria University, Varese, Italy.|Academic Unit of Digital Dentistry, IRCCS S. Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Francesco G
FG
Mangano
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Medical School, Insubria University, Varese, Italy.
Giovanni
G
Veronesi
Freelance Researcher, Sanremo, Italy.
Uli
U
Hauschild
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, University of Tel Aviv, Ramat Tel Aviv, Israel.
Eitan
E
Mijiritsky
Academic Unit of Digital Dentistry, IRCCS S. Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Carlo
C
Mangano
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Aug;144(8):914-20
23904578
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May 6;:null
27150731
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43312
22937030
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Nov;25(11):1304-6
25040237
J Dent. 2015 Feb;43(2):201-8
25527248
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jan 30;14:10
24479892
J Dent. 2014 Jun;42(6):677-83
24508541
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Oct;114(4):554-9
26100929
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Dec;112(6):1461-71
25134995
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 May;20(4):799-806
26362778
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 23;10 (2):e0118810
25706151
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Apr;27(4):465-72
25682892
J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 Jun;139(6):761-3
18520000
J Prosthodont Res. 2016 Jan;60(1):12-9
26520679
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Mar-Apr;31(2):324-30
27004280
J Prosthet Dent. 1970 Jun;23(6):614-20
4911058
J Prosthodont. 2015 Jun;24(4):313-21
25220390
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):555-60
24630399
J Am Dent Assoc. 2014 Jun;145(6):542-51
24878708
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Mar;111(3):186-94
24210732
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):422-8
26487391
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Nov;146(5):673-82
25439218
Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):429-34
27266879
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jul;18(6):1687-94
24240949
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Sep;114(3):403-6.e1
26047800
Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101-29
26110925
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Mar;20(2):283-9
26121970
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Mar;20(2):291-300
26070435
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Dec;26(12):1430-5
25179680
J Prosthodont. 2016 Jun;25(4):282-7
26618259
Dent Mater. 2012 Jan;28(1):3-12
22119539
Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep;20(7):1487-94
26454734
J Dent. 2013 Dec;41(12):1271-80
24012518
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Oct;25(10):1113-8
23941118