Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

Francesco Guido Mangano; Oleg Admakin; Matteo Bonacina; Henriette Lerner; Vygandas Rutkunas; Carlo Mangano

doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01254-9

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

BMC Oral Health. 2020 Sep 22;20(1):263. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01254-9.

Authors

Francesco Guido Mangano¹, Oleg Admakin², Matteo Bonacina³, Henriette Lerner⁴, Vygandas Rutkunas⁵, Carlo Mangano⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Prevention and Communal Dentistry, Sechenov First State Medical University, 119992, Moscow, Russia. francescomangano1@mclink.net.
² Department of Prevention and Communal Dentistry, Sechenov First State Medical University, 119992, Moscow, Russia.
³ Ars and Technology, Sotto il Monte Giovanni XXIII, 24039, Bergamo, Italy.
⁴ Academic Teaching and Research Institution of Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
⁵ Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, LT-01513, Vilnius, Lithuania.
⁶ Department of Dental Sciences, Vita and Salute University San Raffaele, 20132, Milan, Italy.

Abstract

Background: The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression.

Methods: A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed.

Results: With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation.

Conclusions: Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Keywords: Comparative study; Full-arch implant impression; Intraoral scanner; Scanbody; Trueness.

MeSH terms

Computer-Aided Design
Dental Arch
Dental Impression Technique*
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Maxilla / diagnostic imaging
Models, Dental*