Search

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch scans using 11 different cast scanners.Dental arch length (AL), intermolar width (IMW), and intercanine width (ICW) of the reference plaster casts were measured using a coordinate measuring machine (Zeiss O-Inspect 422). The master cast was subsequently scanned 37 times using 11 desktop scanners (3Shape R500, 3Shape R700, 3Shape R1000, 3Shape R2000, Medianetx grande, Medianetx colori, DentaCore CS ULTRA, Dentaurum OrthoX, Maestro 3D, Imetric IScan D104i, GC Aadva Lab Scan). Using the software Convince Premium 2012 (3Shape), AL, IMW, and ICW were measured on the digital models and compared to the reference plaster cast.The accuracy of the cast scanners differed significantly. The most accurate measurements were given by the cast scanners 3Shape R700 (ICW: 7.4?±?5.9?µm) and Imetric IScan D104i (ICW: 9.1?±?4.9?µm). The cast scanners 3Shape R1000 (ICW: 11.2?±?3.4?µm) and GC Aadva Lab Scan (ICW: 13.8?±?8.1?µm) yielded comparable measurements. DentaCore (ICW: 26.6?±?7.5?µm) and Dentaurum OrthoX (ICW: 31.1?±?24?µm) were significantly less accurate.Almost all scanners demonstrated a level of accuracy so high that further improvement would not provide additional benefit for use in orthodontics. Advancement of the scanners should focus primarily on reducing time and cost. For prosthodontic use, the scanners with the highest accuracy are recommended.

The primary objective of this study was to compare the accuracy and time efficiency of an indirect and direct digitalization workflow with that of a three-dimensional (3D) printer in order to identify the most suitable method for orthodontic use.A master model was measured with a coordinate measuring instrument. The distances measured were the intercanine width, the intermolar width, and the dental arch length. Sixty-four scans were taken with each of the desktop scanners R900 and R700 (3Shape), the intraoral scanner TRIOS Color Pod (3Shape), and the Promax 3D Mid cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) unit (Planmeca). All scans were measured with measuring software. One scan was selected and printed 37 times on the D35 stereolithographic 3D printer (Innovation MediTech). The printed models were measured again using the coordinate measuring instrument.The most accurate results were obtained by the R900. The R700 and the TRIOS intraoral scanner showed comparable results. CBCT-3D-rendering with the Promax 3D Mid CBCT unit revealed significantly higher accuracy with regard to dental casts than dental impressions. 3D printing offered a significantly higher level of deviation than digitalization with desktop scanners or an intraoral scanner. The chairside time required for digital impressions was 27% longer than for conventional impressions.Conventional impressions, model casting, and optional digitization with desktop scanners remains the recommended workflow process. For orthodontic demands, intraoral scanners are a useful alternative for full-arch scans. For prosthodontic use, the scanning scope should be less than one quadrant and three additional teeth.