Complete-arch accuracy of seven intraoral scanners measured by the virtual-fit method.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners (IOS) by the virtual-fit method. METHODS: Four maxillary arches with tooth abutments were scanned with an industrial reference scanner (n=1) and by Aoralscan3, EmeraldS, Helios600, Lumina, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 IOSs (each n=12). Two complete-arch fixed frameworks were designed on each IOS scan with a 70 µm (group 70) and a 90 µm internal cement space (group 70+20, additional 20 µm at the margin). The virtual-fit method was comprised of superimposing the framework designs onto the reference scan using a non-penetrating algorithm simulating the clinical try-in. Internal and marginal gaps were measured. Precision was estimated by the mean absolute errors (MAE). RESULTS: In group 70, Mediti700 (43 µm), Primescan (42 µm), and EmeraldS were in the best homogenous subset for the marginal gap, followed by the Lumina (67 µm), Aoralscan3 (70 µm), and Trios5 (70 µm), whereas Helios600 (118 µm) was in the third subset. Based on the MAE at the margin, Mediti700, Trios5, and EmeraldS were in the first-best homogenous subset, followed by Primescan. Lumina and Helios600 were in the third subset, and Aoralscan3 was in the fourth subset. In group 70+20, the marginal gap was significantly decreased for Lumina and Aoralscan3, whereas MAE significantly decreased for EmeraldS and Aoralscan3. The rank of IOSs was similar for the internal gap. CONCLUSION: EmeraldS, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 meet the marginal and internal fit criteria for fixed tooth-borne complete arch restorations. Increasing the cement space during design could enhance restoration fit. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The virtual-fit alignment method can effectively evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners, offering valuable clinical guidance for distinguishing among them. Recent software and hardware versions of long-standing IOS manufacturers are suitable for fabricating complete arch restoration.

Application of the virtual-fit method for fixed complete denture cases designed on intraoral scans: Effect of cement spacing.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the virtual-fit alignment, analyze the impact of cement spacing on internal/marginal gaps, and correlate results with conventional trueness measures. METHODS: Four dental abutment models were scanned using an industrial reference scanner (one time each), Emerald S (three times each), and Medit i700 (three times each) intraoral scanners (IOS). On each IOS scan (n = 24), three complete-arch fixed frameworks were designed with 70 or 140 µm cement space with no marginal space (groups 70 and 140) and 70 µm with an additional 20 µm space, including the margin (group 70+20). Two types of alignment were performed by GOM Inspect software. The reference and IOS scans were aligned through a conventional iterative closest point algorithm (ICP) where the penetration of the two scans was permitted into each other (conventional trueness method). Second, the computer-aided designs were superimposed with the reference scan also using an ICP, but preventing the design from virtual penetration into the model (virtual-fit method). The virtual-fit algorithm was validated by non-penetration alignment of the designs with the IOS scans. Internal and marginal gap was measured between the design and the abutments. The difference between spacing groups was compared by Friedman's test. A statistical correlation (Spearman's Rho Test) was computed between the measured gaps and the conventional trueness method. A significant difference was accepted at p<0.05 after the Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: The gaps deviated from the set cement space by 3-13 µm on IOS scans (validation of virtual-fit algorithm). The internal gap of the design on the reference scan was not affected by cement spacing (Emerald S, p = 0.779; Medit i700, p = 0.205). The marginal gap in groups 70 and 70+20 was significantly lower than in group 140 in Emerald S (p<0.05). In Medit i700, it was lower in the 70+20 group than in the group 70 (p<0.01) and in the group 140 (p<0.05). Some Medit i700 scans exhibited high marginal gaps within group 70 but not in groups 70 and 140. The measured gaps correlated significantly (r = 0.51-0.81, p<0.05-0.001) with the conventional trueness but were 2.6-4.6 times higher (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Virtual-fit alignment can simulate restoration seating. A 20 µm marginal and 90 µm internal spacing could compensate for scan errors up to several hundred micrometers. However, 140 µm internal spacing is counterproductive. The conventional trueness method could only partially predict framework misfit. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The virtual-fit method can provide clinically interpretable data for intraoral scanners. Emerald S and Medit i700 intraoral scanners are suitable for fabricating complete-arch fixed tooth-supported prostheses. In addition, a slight elevation of spacing at the margin could compensate for moderate inaccuracies in a scan.

In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners. METHODS: Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners. RESULTS: The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4µm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7µm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 µm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 µm) and Medit T710 (13-16 µm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31µm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 µm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 µm), and Medit T710 (20-23 µm). CONCLUSIONS: All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.