Prog Orthod. 2022 Jul 4;23(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00416-5.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present in vivo study was to compare the accuracy, in terms of trueness, between full-arch digital impressions of different intraoral scanning systems, using as a reference the ideality of the conventional impression technique.
METHODS: Polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) two-step technique impressions of 27 subjects were taken, and the stone casts were scanned using desktop scanners R500 3Shape. For each arch, in vivo scans were taken with intraoral scanners Carestream CS3600, CEREC Omnicam and Trios 3Shape. All the files were compared, superimposing them on the reference model to calculate the total 3D and 2D deviations. The efficiency of the digital and conventional workflows was evaluated by measuring the work time in minutes. Statistical analyses were performed using R software (R Core Team 2020) with a p-value < 0.05.
RESULTS: The three intraoral scanners differed from the PVS impression by differences of the order of 100-200 µm, and there was a trend of greater imprecision in the molar area in both dental arches. In comparison with PVS technique, CEREC tended to reduce the size of the impression, Trios presented the trend of greater precision, and Carestream showed minor differences the transversal distance. The areas of greatest discrepancy both in excess and in defect with respect to the PVS impression were the molar areas and incisal margins. Trios 3Shape recorded the shortest times and therefore with a more performing speed.
CONCLUSION: The Trios 3Shape was found to be the most accurate single-tooth scanner, while the Carestream CS 3600 showed better inter-arch diameter performance compared to PVS impressions. The 3D and 2D analyses showed a trend of greater distortion of the impressions compared to the conventional one in the molar region.
PMID:35781850 | DOI:10.1186/s40510-022-00416-5