Abstract:OBJECTIVE To provide a reference for using intraoral scanners for making clinical diagnostic dentures of edentulous jaws by comparing the accuracy of three intraoral scanners for primary impression and jaw relation record of edentulous jaws. METHODS This study contained 6 primary impressions of the edentulous patients. Each of the impressions consisted of the maxillary primary impression, the mandibular primary impression and the jaw relation record. For each of them, a dental cast scanner (Dentscan Y500) was used to obtain stereolithography (STL) data as reference scan, and then three intraoral scanners including i500, Trios 3 and CEREC Primescan were used for three times to obtain STL data as experiment groups. In Geomagic Studio 2013 software, trueness was obtained by comparing experiment groups with the reference scan, and the precision was obtained from intragroup comparisons. Registered maxillary data of the intraoral scan with reference scan, the morphological error of jaw relation record was obtained by comparing jaw relation record of the intraoral scan with the reference scan. Registered mandibular data with jaw relation record of intraoral scan and the displacement of the jaw position were evaluated. Independent samples t test and Mann-Whitney U test in the SPSS 20.0 statistical software were used to statistically analyze the trueness, precision and morphological error of jaw relation record of three intraoral scanners. The Bland-Altman diagram was used to evaluate the consistency of the jaw relationship measured by the three intraoral scanners. RESULTS The trueness of i500, Trios 3 and CEREC Primescan scanners was (182.34±101.21) μm, (145.21±71.73) μm, and (78.34±34.79) μm for maxilla; (106.42±21.63) μm, and 95.08 (63.08) μm, (78.45±42.77) μm for mandible. There was no significant difference in trueness of the three scanners when scanning the maxilla and mandible(P>0.05). The precision of the three scanners was 147.65 (156.30) μm, (147.54±83.33) μm, and 40.30 (32.80) μm for maxilla; (90.96±30.77) μm, (53.73±23.56) μm, and 37.60 (93.93) μm for mandible. The precision of CEREC Primescan scanner was significantly better than that of the other two scanners for maxilla (P<0.05). Trios 3 and CEREC Primescan scanners were significantly better than i500 scanner for mandible (P<0.05). The precision of the i500 and Trios 3 scanners for mandible was superior to maxilla (P<0.05). The upper limit of 95% confidence intervals of trueness and precision of three scanners for both maxilla and mandible were within ±300 μm which was clinically accepted. The morphological error of jaw relation record of the three scanners was (337.68±128.54) μm, (342.89±195.41) μm, and (168.62±88.35) μm. The 95% confidence intervals of i500 and Trios 3 scanners were over 300 μm. CEREC Primescan scanner was significantly superior to i500 scanner(P<0.05).The displacement of the jaw position of the three scanners was (0.83±0.56) mm, (0.80±0.45) mm, and (0.91±0.75) mm for vertical dimension; (0.79±0.58) mm, (0.62±0.18) mm, and (0.53±0.53) mm for anterior and posterior directions; (0.95±0.59) mm, (0.69±0.45) mm, and (0.60±0.22) mm for left and right directions. The displacement of the jaw position of the three scanners in vertical dimension, anterior and posterior directions and the left and right directions were within the 95% consistency limit. CONCLUSION Three intraoral scanners showed good trueness and precision. The i500 and Trios 3 scanners had more errors in jaw relation record, but they were used as primary jaw relation record. It is suggested that three intraoral scanners can be used for obtaining digital data to make diagnostic dentures and individual trays, reducing possible deforming or crack when sending impressions from clinic to laboratory.

Time and Accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam Using Two Different Software Programs

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

Accuracy of full arch three-dimensional dentition models from intraoral scanners

Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of full-arch scans by Cerec Primescan AC: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

Accuracy and reliability of measurements performed using two different software programs on digital models generated using laser and computed tomography plaster model scanners

A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners

In Vitro Analysis of the Accuracy of the Use of Waste Zirconia Dust Compared With Optical Scanning Spray on Implant Abutment Models in Extraoral Scanning Protocol

Scanning Accuracy of 10 Intraoral Scanners for Single-crown and Three-unit Fixed Denture Preparations: an in Vitro Study.

Influence of operator experience on the complete-arch accuracy and time-based efficiency of three intraoral scanners

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Different Scan Patterns for Full-Arch Digital Implant Impressions

Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions with different scanning strategies: An in vitro study

Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study

Evaluating the accuracy of CEREC intraoral scanners for inlay restorations: impact of adjacent tooth materials

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

Coordinate-based data analysis of the accuracy of five intraoral scanners for scanning completely dentate and partially edentulous mandibular arches

[Accuracy of Three Intraoral Scans for Primary Impressions of Edentulous Jaws].

Accuracy and Reproducibility of Virtual Edentulous Casts Created by Laboratory Impression Scan Protocols.

Influence of implant reference on the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured by using a photogrammetry system

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