PUBMED INTRAORAL SCANNER STUDY

September 24, 2020

Finally an independent study comparing the latest intra-oral scanners on the market has been released.

Dentists, technicians, specialists and the industry as a whole, has been desperate for an independent study like this. Now we have it. Although it does have some limitations, it certainly brings up some interesting points.

Although other studies comparing scanners have been released in the past, these were often released by the companies themselves (obvious conflict of interest there). Furthermore, the previous studies usually had none of the major competitors involved or the study was in some way funded through an educational institution but via a grant from said company.

This independent and unbiased study by Francesco Guido Mangano and his team is an amazing piece of published literature. To read the full publication click here.

Unbiased, peer-reviewed research is critical to push innovation and hold every player in the market accountable. Having empirical data like this can only encourage companies to do better with their future products.

We have summarised the study below for your convenience.

Study Summary

This study was based on a full arch implant scan of scan bodies using 2 different methods of analysis (mesh and nurbs). A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD) to capture a reference model. Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the reference model, to evaluate trueness.

Statistically significant differences emerged in the accuracy between different intraoral scanners, and some may be more suitable for optical impressions for the manufacture of implant-supported long-span restorations such as full arch implant restorations. 


Results

Intraoral scanner accuracy for the mesh/mesh (STL files) comparison is as follows:

  1. 1
    Carestream CS 3700 (mean error 30.4 μm)
  2. 2
    iTero ELEMENTS 5D (31.4 μm)
  3. 3
    Medit i-500 (32.2 μm)
  4. 4
    3Shape TRIOS 3 (36.4 μm)
  5. 5
    Carestream CS 3600 (36.5 μm)
  6. 6
    CEREC PRIMESCAN (38.4 μm)
  7. 7
    Dental Wings VIRTUO VIVO (43.8 μm)
  8. 8
    Runyes QUICKSCAN(44.4 μm)
  9. 9
    Planmeca EMERALD S (52.9 μm)
  10. 10
    Planmeca EMERALD (76.1 μm)
  11. 11
    CEREC OMNICAM (79.6 μm)
  12. 12
    Dental Wings DWIO (98.4 μm)

Intraoral scanner accuracy for the nurbs/nurbs (scanbody positions in space) comparison is as follows:

  1. 1
    iTero ELEMENTS 5D (mean error 16.1 μm)
  2. 2
    CEREC PRIMESCAN (19.3 μm)
  3. 3
    3Shape TRIOS 3 (20.2 μm)
  4. 4
    Medit i-500 (20.8 μm)
  5. 5
    Carestream Dental CS 3700 (21.9 μm)
  6. 6
    Carestream Dental CS 3600 (24.4 μm)
  7. 7
    Dental Wings VIRTUO VIVO (32.0 μm)
  8. 8
    Runyes QUICKSCAN (33.9 μm)
  9. 9
    Planmeca EMERALD S (36.8 μm)
  10. 10
    CEREC OMNICAM (47.0 μm)
  11. 11
    Planmeca EMERALD (51.9 μm)
  12. 12
    Dental Wings DWIO (69.9 μm)

To read the full article click here.

We have an unbiased intraoral scanner study, now what?

As with all scientific literature we have to be careful not to make hasty conclusions from a single study. In saying that, this paper certainly raises some interesting questions and will hopefully lead to more studies of this nature.

As the authors say "although scrupulously conducted, and although it is not possible to determine the trueness of an IOS in vivo, an in vitro study cannot exactly reproduce the characteristics present in the patient’s mouth (conditions of light, humidity, saliva). The scanning of plaster models is certainly easier than an intraoral scan, which has limits of space".

The obvious limitation here is that it is an in-vitro study. Although the actual measurements are reliable, in an actual patient in a clinical setting the results maybe different. Additionally trueness (or accuracy) is just one parameter of a scanner's performance clinically.

This is important to keep in mind as how these scanners actually behave in the mouth may be a lot different than on lab bench. Not in a good way either - these scanners need to be engineered with moisture control, light interaction, and the generally harsh environment of the mouth in mind. These results may also not be directly relatable to movable tissue as these were done on static models. There is also some contention with the type of scan body used in this study.

The other interesting factor is that a desktop scanner is used as the control. This is assuming the desktop scanner is the gold standard and does not include any inaccuracies in itself.

Here at the Institute of Digital Dentistry we have reviewed many of these scanners from a clinical perspective. This includes many scanners tested in this study such as the TRIOS 3, CEREC Omnicam, TRIOS 4 and Medit i500. It is great to have empirical data to back up our impressions of these scanners. 

Thanks to Francesco Guido Mangano and his team for the enormous amount of effort it would have taken to collate, analyze and publish this data. On top of all of this, they have provided it for free for everyone.

They say it best in their concluding statement "it is important to remember that other factors are important in determining the reliability of an optical impression, including the operator, patient, environmental conditions and scanbodies. Further studies are therefore necessary to understand the weight of each factor in determining the final error in the optical impression."

About the author 

Dr Ahmad Al-Hassiny

Dr Ahmad is a global leader in digital dentistry and intraoral scanners, carrying out lectures as a KOL for many companies and industry. He is one of the few in the world who owns and has tested all mainstream scanners and CAD/CAM systems in his clinic. Dr Ahmad Al-Hassiny is also the Director of The Institute of Digital Dentistry (iDD), which is a world-leading digital dentistry education provider. iDD offers live courses, masterclasses, and an online training platform, with a mission to ensure dentists globally have easy and affordable access to the best digital dentistry training possible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked

{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Read our related CAD/CAM dentistry articles and blogs below:

The Heron IOS by 3DISC is an intraoral scanner that has been around since 2018. Over the years, it has seen improvements to the software and even new branding in an effort to capture some

Read More

We compare how three different intraoral scanners performed when scanning the same implant patient, specifically a scan body and the soft tissue around the implant. In this article, we’re comparing scans taken with CEREC

Read More

In March 2021, Dentsply Sirona introduced CEREC Tessera - a lithium disilicate block that seemingly competes with Ivoclar Vivadent’s IPS e.max CAD. CEREC Tessera promises to be a “trifecta of speed, strength, and

Read More

Check the video below to see what you get with the Heron IOS by 3DISCHere at iDD, we are in the process of testing the Heron IOS, an intraoral scanner that is designed

Read More

Sign up below to receive updates on our next digital dentistry articles and CAD/CAM Reviews!