29 Oct Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
September 29, 2016: Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano published an article in PLOS ONE (The world’s first multidisciplinary Open Access journal, PLOS ONE accepts scientifically rigorous research, regardless of novelty.). It compares “Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study” PLoS ONE 11(9): e0163107. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163107. Included in the study are the 3shape Trios and Carestream CS3500 intra-oral scanners.
Results are good for the Carestream CS3500, especially in that it compared favorably against the 3shape Trios.
Purpose: 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®).
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).
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 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.