Abstract:Statement of problem: Multiple factors can influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). However, the impact of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of IOSs for fabricating tooth-supported crowns remains uncertain. Purpose: The purpose of the present in vitro study was to measure the influence of scan extension (half or complete arch scan) and the starting quadrant (same quadrant or contralateral quadrant of the location of the crown preparation) on the accuracy of four IOSs. Material and methods: A typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710) to obtain a reference scan. Four scanner groups were created: TRIOS 5, PrimeScan, i700, and iTero. Then, 3 subgroups were defined based on the scan extension and starting quadrant: half arch (HA subgroup), complete arch scan starting on the left quadrant (CA-same subgroup), and complete arch scan starting on the right quadrant (CA-contralateral subgroup), (n=15). The reference scan was used as a control to measure the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the tooth preparation, margin of the tooth preparation, and adjacent tooth areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05). Results: For the tooth preparation analysis, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.002). The iTero and TRIOS5 groups obtained better trueness than the PrimeScan and i700 groups (P<.001). Moreover, half arch scans obtained the best trueness, while the CA-contralateral scans obtained the worst trueness (P<.001). The iTero group showed the worst precision among the IOSs tested. For the margin of the tooth preparation evaluation, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The iTero group obtained best trueness (P<.001), but the worst precision (P<.001) among the IOSs tested. Half arch scans obtained the best trueness and precision values. For the adjacent tooth analysis, trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best trueness and precision. Half arch scans obtained the best accuracy. Conclusions: Scan extension and the starting quadrant impacted the scanning trueness and precision of the IOSs tested. Additionally, the IOSs showed varying scanning discrepancies depending on the scanning area assessed. Half arch scans presented the highest trueness and precision, and the complete arch scans in which the scan started in the contralateral quadrant of where the crown preparation was obtained the worst trueness and precision.

Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

Effect of using scan body accessories and inter‐implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

Influence Of Different Factors On The Accuracy Of Digital Impressions Of Multiple Implants: An In Vitro Study

Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study

Influence of different scan body design features and intraoral scanners on the congruence between scan body meshes and library files: An in vitro study

In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings

In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra‐oral scanning devices

Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques in bilateral distal extension cases: a randomized clinical trial

Effect of cut-out rescanning protocol on the accuracy of digital impressions in convergent implants positioned at varying depths: An in vitro study

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Accuracy of new implant impression technique using dual arch tray and bite impression coping

Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Using a Novel Structured Light Scanning System Assisted by a Planar Mirror in the Edentulous Maxilla: an in Vitro Study

Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An<i> in</i><i> vitro</i> study

Influence of the number of scan bodies on full-arch implant scanning: A comparison of 2 vs 4 implants

Evaluation of the Impact of Digital Dentistry on the Precision of Implant Placement and Prosthesis Fabrication: An In-Vitro Study

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Impressions for Determining Axes and Distances of Three Implants in Straight and Curved Lines: An In Vitro Study

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study