ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparative Analysis of Four Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of substructure material on the scanning accuracy and scannability of implant-supported full arch bar substructures.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Accuracy of digitally fabricated partial coverage ceramic restorations using conventional impression and intraoral scanners.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Mapping Error Propagation in Intraoral Scanning Using Reason's Swiss-Cheese Model: An In Vitro Study of Precision Under Repeatability Conditions.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for different crowns - An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Accuracy and Speed Across Three Intraoral Scanners.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- In Vitro Accuracy Analysis of Intraoral Scanning Strategies: A Comparison of Two Contemporary IOS Systems.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of multi-unit fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of conventional versus digital impressions.Dental research journal · 2026Review
- Clinical Evaluation of Intraoral, In-Lab Scanners and PVS Impression Materials Using STL Superimposition.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrating 3D Digital Technology Advancements in the Fabrication of Orthodontic Aligner Attachments: An In Vitro Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the feasibility of conventional and digital impressions of full-arch by the absolute linear deviation method: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Accuracy Analysis of Digital Models from Intraoral Scanners and 3D-Printed Casts in Children and Teenagers.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Palatal rugae assessment using plaster model and dental scan: a cross-sectional comparative analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Intraoral scanners undergo rapid advancements in hardware and software, prompting frequent updates by manufacturers. (2) Aim: This study aimed to quantitatively assess the precision of full dental arch digital impressions obtained from four different intraoral scanners: Trios 5-3SHAPE, Copenhagen, Denmark, CEREC Primescan- Dentsply Sirona, New York, NY, USA, Planmeca Emerald S-Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland, and Medit i700-Medit Corp, Seoul, Republic of Korea. (3) Methods: A maxillary virtual dental model (digital master model) was created in accordance with ISO standard 20896-1. Subsequently, a 3D-printed model was obtained from the master model's STL file and scanned 15 times consecutively with each scanner. STL files were aligned with the master model's STL using Medit Link-Medit Design software v.3.1.0. The accuracy was evaluated by measuring deviations in micrometers between each scanner's scans and the master model. (4) Results: The study revealed variations in accuracy ranging from 23 to 32 µm across scans of the same dental arch, irrespective of the scanner used and scanning strategy employed. The anterior regions exhibited higher precision (Mean Absolute Deviation of 112 µm) compared to the posterior regions (Mean Absolute Deviation of 127 µm). Trios 5 demonstrated the smallest deviation (average 112 µm), indicating superior accuracy among the scanners tested. Emerald S and Medit i700 exhibited balanced performance (average 117 µm and 114 µm, respectively), while Primescan consistently displayed high deviation (average 127 µm). (5) Conclusions: Based on clinically accepted thresholds for accuracy in intraoral scanning, which are typically 200 µm for full arch scans, Trios 5 surpasses these benchmarks with its average deviation falling within the 200 µm range. Emerald S and Medit i700 also meet these standards, while Primescan, although showing high overall deviation, approaches the upper limit of clinical acceptability. Considering the limitations of an in vitro investigation, the findings demonstrate that each intraoral scanner under evaluation is capable of reliably and consistently capturing a full arch scan for dentate patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.