New Study Tests Leading Brands Of Intraoral Scanner

These are our intraoral scanner reviews of products when it comes to single-tooth impressions. You may wonder which intraoral scanner (IOS) delivers the most accurate results? A study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association in February revealed surprising shortcomings in many IOS brands. Just one scanner — a Dentsply Sirona model — approached the accuracy of more conventional impression techniques.

Intraoral scan accuracy is vital when creating a restoration with a good fit. The Swiss researchers who put a variety of popular IOS systems to the test weren’t expecting to see a lot of variation in the results.

The study was led by Moritz Zimmerman, Dr. Med. Dent., currently serving as an assistant professor at the University of Zurich’s Center of Dental Medicine. Zimmerman noted that the study’s results did align with other studies which have also found that IOS systems struggled to reproduce margins precisely.

The study’s researchers started by creating a mandibular model out of zirconia-reinforced glass-ceramic. This material provides the same refractive index as a natural tooth. Four teeth were created for three preparation scans: two teeth (#41 & #46) for full-contact crowns, one (#36) for a mesio-occlusal inlay, and one (#44) for a mesio-occlusodistal inlay.

Intraoral scanners from five different brands were used to take impressions from each tooth. Following the manufacturers’ recommendations carefully, impressions were repeated 10 times with each scanning system.

The data produced by each system was checked for preparation margins, tooth preparation surface area, and two points of accuracy and precision. Margins and surface areas were also checked against conventional impressions. The conventional impression data was gathered using Coltene’s President 360 heavy and light body material.

The IOS results differed widely for inlays and crowns. Tooth preparation surface area spread out across a range from Primescan’s 8.3 µm to CEREC Omniscan’s 23.9 µm.
The spread was even greater for preparation margins. Conventional impressions provided the greatest precision at 14.3 µm, while the CEREC Omnicam version 5.0.0 produced 48.8 µm. Conventional impressions also delivered trueness of 17.7 µm while the CEREC Omnicam version 5.0.0 again fell at the other end of the field, with a trueness of 55.9 µm.

The study’s authors noted that margins might be the most important clinical parameter for judging tooth abutment accuracy. If the preparation line has a positive deviation, the restorations produced might be too short. If the line has a negative deviation, the result might be restorations with premature contact due to unwanted contact with the abutment.

Broadly speaking, conventional impressions produced better results than intraoral scanners. The one exception was Dentsply Sirona’s Primescan system. The Primescan system outperformed all other tested IOS systems in the trueness of preparation margins and surface areas.

The researchers were open about the potential shortcomings of their study. Environmental factors may play a significant role when IOS systems are used in the real world, e.g. patient saliva and movement. The study’s authors hoped that future studies could focus on scanner effectiveness in more realistic scenarios.

We hope you’ve enjoyed this article and us briefly touching on our Intraoral scanner reviews – to learn more about how to turn your practice into a thriving business download our FREE 43-page report!

Kevin Steineman is a Digital Marketer, Entrepreneur, and Producer. Find out more about Kevin @KSteineman on Instagram, Facebook and wherever your heart desires. Be sure to also check out our Dental News Site - The Daily Floss!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *