2023 Volume 15 Issue 2 Pages 211-218
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners and compare the trueness and precision of three types of intraoral scanners with different size of scanner head based on measurements between pairs of ball abutments in vitro.
Methods: Four implants were placed on a lower jaw model. A model with a reference sphere for calibration in the lingual region was used as the reference model. After ball abutments were connected to the implants on the reference model, the three-dimensional (3D) shape of the model was measured using a 3D coordinate-measuring machine, and reference values were calculated. Subsequently, the 3D shape data (STL data) of the model was obtained using three types of intraoral scanner (CEREC Primescan [PM], CEREC Omnicam [OM], Planmeca Emerald [EM], and Planmeca Emerald with a scanner head smaller than a regular scanner head [EMS]). Using the obtained 3D shape data, the distance between pairs of the four ball abutments measured by the scanners was compared using 3D analysis software (spGauge).
Results: Larger errors were seen when scanning longer distances. The MES with a smaller scanner head had significantly larger errors with regard to both trueness and precision.
Conclusion: From an accuracy perspective, it is difficult to apply intraoral scanners to patients with a large number of missing teeth. However, these results suggest that the present method may be applicable for oral implants in patients with a few missing teeth.
