Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2012) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043312Įnder A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. Van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression.
J Am Dent Assoc 140(10):1301–1304Įnder A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study.
Zweig A (2009) Improving impressions: go digital! Dent Today 28(11):100, 102, 104Ĭhristensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139(6):761–763Ĭhristensen GJ (2009) Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M (2009) Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Shetty P, Rodrigues S (2006) Accuracy of elastomeric impression materials on repeated pours. Shafa S, Zaree Z, Mosharraf R (2008) The effects of custom tray material on the accuracy of master casts. Jamani KD, Harrington E, Wilson HJ (1989) Rigidity of elastomeric impression materials. J Oral Rehabil 10(4):325–333Įndo T, Finger WJ (2006) Dimensional accuracy of a new polyether impression material. Dent Today 29(2):140, 142, 144–145Ĭlancy JM, Scandrett FR, Ettinger RL (1983) Long-term dimensional stability of three current elastomers. Schoenbaum TR (2010) Decoding CAD/CAM and digital impression units. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG (2007) Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations. Clinical relevanceĭespite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions. ConclusionsĮxcept for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero ( p < 0.05). Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. A level of statistical significance of p < 0.05 was set.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. Materials and methodsĪ representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans.