Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: an in vivo analysis

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 10; no. 1; p. 1172
• Main Authors: Winkler, Jonas, Gkantidis, Nikolaos
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 24.01.2020; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 59; 692/308; 692/698/3008; 692/700/3032/3059; Adult; Data Accuracy; Dental Arch - diagnostic imaging; Dentistry; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - instrumentation; Maxilla - diagnostic imaging; Middle Aged; multidisciplinary; Oral cavity; Reference Values; Scanners; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Therapeutic applications
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58075-7

Intraoral three-dimensional imaging has gained great interest in dentistry as a mean to generate risk-free imprints of the oral cavity. Accurate intraoral models facilitate proper diagnosis, growth assessment, outcome evaluation, and 3D printing applications. Here, in an actual clinical setup on 12 subjects, we evaluate the trueness and precision of two widely used intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, 3Shape and CS 3600, Carestream), using an industrial scanner (Artec Space Spider) as a reference. Surface based matching was implemented using the iterative closest point algorithm (ICP). Trueness of the intraoral scans was analyzed by measuring their distance from the reference scan, in the upper buccal front area. Precision was tested through the distance of repeated scans regarding the whole dental arch, following superimpositions in the buccal front and in the whole dental arch area. TRIOS 3 displayed slightly higher precision (approximately 10 μm) compared to CS 3600, only after superimposition on the whole dental arch (p < 0.05). Both intraoral scanners showed good performance and comparable trueness (median: 0.0154 mm; p> 0.05). However, in individual cases and in various, not spatially defined areas, higher imprecision was evident. Thus, the intraoral scanners’ appropriateness for highly demanding, spatially extended clinical applications remains questionable.