Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update

The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy (trueness/precision) of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic referen...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Alexander Schmidt, Leona Klussmann, Bernd Wöstmann, Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2020-03-01
Series:Journal of Clinical Medicine
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/3/688
Description
Summary:The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy (trueness/precision) of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic reference aid served as a reference dataset. Four digital impressions (Trios3Cart, Trios3Pod, Trios4Pod, and Primescan) and one CVI were investigated in five patients. Scan data were analyzed using three-dimensional analysis software and conventional models using a coordinate measurement machine. The transfer accuracy between the reference aid and the impression methods were compared. Differences with <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Overall, mean &#177; standard deviation (SD) transfer accuracy ranged from 24.6 &#177; 17.7 &#181;m (CVI) to 204.5 &#177; 182.1 &#181;m (Trios3Pod). The Primescan yielded the lowest deviation for digital impressions (33.8 &#177; 31.5 &#181;m), followed by Trios4Pod (65.2 &#177; 52.9 &#181;m), Trios3Cart (84.7 &#177; 120.3 &#181;m), and Trios3Pod. Within the limitations of this study, current IOS equipped with the latest software versions demonstrated less deviation for short-span distances compared with the conventional impression technique. However, for long-span distances, the conventional impression technique provided the lowest deviation. Overall, currently available IOS systems demonstrated improvement regarding transfer accuracy of full-arch scans in patients.
ISSN:2077-0383