Work

Clinical study on the accuracy of wireless intraoral scanners for digital full arch impressions of dentate arches

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: • Conventional impressions still showed the highest overall transfer accuracy compared to all intraoral scanners, although no statistically significant differences in trueness were found when compared to Primescan 2, Trios 5 and Primescan AC. • Primescan 2 and Primescan AC showed the best performance among the IOS, with deviations comparable to CVI in terms of trueness. • Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the Primescan AC and the Primescan 2 for overall pooled linear distance deviations. • However, some wireless IOS showed statistically significant differences, suggesting that individual performance may vary and should be evaluated carefully. • Clinical implications: Not all wireless IOS can be considered equivalent, highlighting the importance of device-specific evaluation prior to clinical use. The aim of this clinical study was to update the literature on the scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of four modern wireless intraoral scanners (IOS) and to compare their performance with wired IOS and conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic reference aid was employed as the reference dataset. Digital impressions were obtained from four wireless IOS (Dexis IS 3800W, Medit i700, Primescan 2, and Trios 5), one wired IOS (Primescan AC), and one CVI in thirty patients. Scan data were analysed using 3D software, and CVI dental stone casts were evaluated using a coordinate measuring machine. Scan accuracy between the reference aid and the various impression systems was compared. Statistical analysis was performed using mixed-effects ANOVA models, with significance set at p < 0.05. Statistically significant differences in trueness and precision were observed between the impression systems (p < 0.05). A significant interaction between impression system and linear distance (p < 0.05) indicated that performance varied depending on the length of scan path. The Dexis IS 3800W and Medit i700 exhibited the greatest deviations, whereas the cloud-native Primescan 2 demonstrated comparable or superior accuracy to other impression systems. Within the limitations of this clinical study, the overall accuracy of CVI remained high. Accuracy was influenced by both the impression system and the length of the scan path, with smaller deviations observed over short distances and increased inaccuracies over longer distances, particularly in diagonal and intermolar regions. Wireless IOS demonstrated statistically significant differences in certain cases, highlighting the importance of carefully evaluating the performance of each system individually.

Source: Journal of Dentistry

DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106132

Authors: Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz, Luca Chillemi, Bernd Wöstmann

Institutions: Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen

Language: English

Topic: Dental materials and restorations

Subfield: Orthodontics

Field: Dentistry

Domain: Health Sciences

SDG: Good health and well-being

Open Access status: hybrid

Estimated APC paid: $4,160