We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Computerized Dentistry



Forgotten password?


Int J Comput Dent 22 (2019), No. 4     13. Dec. 2019
Int J Comput Dent 22 (2019), No. 4  (13.12.2019)

Page 307-319, PubMed:31840139, Language: German/English

Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study
Passos, Leandro / Meiga, Sergio / Brigagão, Vinicius / Street, Alexandre
Aim: To determine the scanning strategy that obtains the most accurate results for two intraoral scanners (IOS) in complete-arch digital impressions. Scan time was evaluated and correlated with scan strategies.
Materials and method: A custom model used as the reference standard was fabricated with teeth having dentin- and enamel-identical refractive indices simulating natural dentition. A reference scan of the custom typodont was obtained using an ATOS III Triple Scan 3D optical scanner. Two IOS setups - Omnicam v 5.1.0 and Primescan v 5.0.2 - were used for complete-arch scanning, each using 13 scanning strategies, obtaining 260 digital files (n = 10 per group), recording each scan time, converting all experimental scans to standard tessellation language (STL) format, and using a comprehensive metrology program to compare the reference standard scan with the experimental scans. Statistical analyses utilized Welch's unequal variances t test.
Results: Group M exhibited the lowest trueness and precision values (P < 0.05) for Primescan (47.5% of the average among all other groups) and the lowest trueness value (P < 0.05) for Omnicam (53.4% of the average among all other groups), where group B exhibited the lowest precision value (65.6% of the average among all other groups) with P < 0.05. Primescan featured a better trueness index (4.79 µm) than that of Omnicam (19.13 µm), with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.00001). Primescan, group M, also featured a better precision index (4.67 µm) than Omnicam, group B (16.75 µm), with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.00001).
Conclusion: For both IOS systems, group M provided the lowest scanning times. For trueness and precision of complete-arch scans, group M was the dominant scanning strategy in Primescan, while there was no dominant strategy in Omnicam. Group M had the best scanning time for both IOS systems.

Keywords: CAD/CAM, intraoral scanner, digital impression, accuracy, full-arch dental impression, standard tessellation language