Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis

Robert G. Nedelcu; Anna S.K. Persson

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027

Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis

Robert G. Nedelcu, Anna S.K. Persson

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

198 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem. Intraoral scanners may use proprietary acquisition and manufacturing processes. However, limited information is available regarding their accuracy, their precision, and the influence that refraction or coating may have on their output.

Purpose. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and precision of 4 intraoral scanners and to assess the influence of different test materials and coating thicknesses.

Material and methods. Models were fabricated in 3 materials (polymethyl methacrylate [Telio CAD], titanium, and zirconia) and reference scanned with an industrial optical scanner. The models were scanned with intraoral scanners (3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, E4D, and iTero). A thick layer of coating was applied and scanned (3M Lava COS). Further evaluation on a gypsum cast was undertaken for the E4D system. Data were evaluated by using 3-dimensional analysis with "3D compare" software commands (3D compare analysis) regarding standard, mean, and maximum deviations, with subsequent statistical analysis.

Results. The 3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, and iTero generally displayed similar results regarding deviations. Maximum deviations, however, increased by several factors for the noncoating scanners (iTero and E4D). Statistical significance was found regarding material properties for noncoating scanners (P<.05). iTero displayed consistent material-specific, localized errors on the translucent material (Telio CAD). E4D showed the largest deviations. Scans of the gypsum cast displayed specific localized areas with greater deviations. Excessive coating was nonsignificant.

Conclusions. Significant differences were found between the coating and noncoating scanners, and specific scanning errors for the system with parallel confocal microscopy were found for certain model materials. Specific areas of sizable deviations for the system with laser triangulation technology can be explained by the scanner design and noncoating technology. Excessive coating had no negative effect.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1461-1471
Number of pages	11
Journal	Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume	112
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
Publication status	Published - 1 Dec 2014
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027

Cite this

@article{0bca32d11dad46238326ab0f50ae9ec4,

title = "Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis",

abstract = "Statement of problem. Intraoral scanners may use proprietary acquisition and manufacturing processes. However, limited information is available regarding their accuracy, their precision, and the influence that refraction or coating may have on their output.Purpose. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and precision of 4 intraoral scanners and to assess the influence of different test materials and coating thicknesses.Material and methods. Models were fabricated in 3 materials (polymethyl methacrylate [Telio CAD], titanium, and zirconia) and reference scanned with an industrial optical scanner. The models were scanned with intraoral scanners (3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, E4D, and iTero). A thick layer of coating was applied and scanned (3M Lava COS). Further evaluation on a gypsum cast was undertaken for the E4D system. Data were evaluated by using 3-dimensional analysis with {"}3D compare{"} software commands (3D compare analysis) regarding standard, mean, and maximum deviations, with subsequent statistical analysis.Results. The 3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, and iTero generally displayed similar results regarding deviations. Maximum deviations, however, increased by several factors for the noncoating scanners (iTero and E4D). Statistical significance was found regarding material properties for noncoating scanners (P<.05). iTero displayed consistent material-specific, localized errors on the translucent material (Telio CAD). E4D showed the largest deviations. Scans of the gypsum cast displayed specific localized areas with greater deviations. Excessive coating was nonsignificant.Conclusions. Significant differences were found between the coating and noncoating scanners, and specific scanning errors for the system with parallel confocal microscopy were found for certain model materials. Specific areas of sizable deviations for the system with laser triangulation technology can be explained by the scanner design and noncoating technology. Excessive coating had no negative effect.",

author = "Nedelcu, {Robert G.} and Persson, {Anna S.K.}",

year = "2014",

month = dec,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027",

language = "English",

volume = "112",

pages = "1461--1471",

journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",

issn = "0022-3913",

publisher = "Mosby International",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners

T2 - An in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis

AU - Nedelcu, Robert G.

AU - Persson, Anna S.K.

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Statement of problem. Intraoral scanners may use proprietary acquisition and manufacturing processes. However, limited information is available regarding their accuracy, their precision, and the influence that refraction or coating may have on their output.Purpose. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and precision of 4 intraoral scanners and to assess the influence of different test materials and coating thicknesses.Material and methods. Models were fabricated in 3 materials (polymethyl methacrylate [Telio CAD], titanium, and zirconia) and reference scanned with an industrial optical scanner. The models were scanned with intraoral scanners (3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, E4D, and iTero). A thick layer of coating was applied and scanned (3M Lava COS). Further evaluation on a gypsum cast was undertaken for the E4D system. Data were evaluated by using 3-dimensional analysis with "3D compare" software commands (3D compare analysis) regarding standard, mean, and maximum deviations, with subsequent statistical analysis.Results. The 3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, and iTero generally displayed similar results regarding deviations. Maximum deviations, however, increased by several factors for the noncoating scanners (iTero and E4D). Statistical significance was found regarding material properties for noncoating scanners (P<.05). iTero displayed consistent material-specific, localized errors on the translucent material (Telio CAD). E4D showed the largest deviations. Scans of the gypsum cast displayed specific localized areas with greater deviations. Excessive coating was nonsignificant.Conclusions. Significant differences were found between the coating and noncoating scanners, and specific scanning errors for the system with parallel confocal microscopy were found for certain model materials. Specific areas of sizable deviations for the system with laser triangulation technology can be explained by the scanner design and noncoating technology. Excessive coating had no negative effect.

AB - Statement of problem. Intraoral scanners may use proprietary acquisition and manufacturing processes. However, limited information is available regarding their accuracy, their precision, and the influence that refraction or coating may have on their output.Purpose. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and precision of 4 intraoral scanners and to assess the influence of different test materials and coating thicknesses.Material and methods. Models were fabricated in 3 materials (polymethyl methacrylate [Telio CAD], titanium, and zirconia) and reference scanned with an industrial optical scanner. The models were scanned with intraoral scanners (3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, E4D, and iTero). A thick layer of coating was applied and scanned (3M Lava COS). Further evaluation on a gypsum cast was undertaken for the E4D system. Data were evaluated by using 3-dimensional analysis with "3D compare" software commands (3D compare analysis) regarding standard, mean, and maximum deviations, with subsequent statistical analysis.Results. The 3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, and iTero generally displayed similar results regarding deviations. Maximum deviations, however, increased by several factors for the noncoating scanners (iTero and E4D). Statistical significance was found regarding material properties for noncoating scanners (P<.05). iTero displayed consistent material-specific, localized errors on the translucent material (Telio CAD). E4D showed the largest deviations. Scans of the gypsum cast displayed specific localized areas with greater deviations. Excessive coating was nonsignificant.Conclusions. Significant differences were found between the coating and noncoating scanners, and specific scanning errors for the system with parallel confocal microscopy were found for certain model materials. Specific areas of sizable deviations for the system with laser triangulation technology can be explained by the scanner design and noncoating technology. Excessive coating had no negative effect.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84912077800&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027

DO - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027

M3 - Article

C2 - 25134995

AN - SCOPUS:84912077800

SN - 0022-3913

VL - 112

SP - 1461

EP - 1471

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

IS - 6

ER -

Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this