Table 2.
Studies including the accuracy of different intraoral scanner
| Study | Study design | Model | IOS used | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ender and Mehl[19] | In vitro | Complete arch model with 3 prepared teeth | Cerec AC Bluecam Lava COS | Cerec AC Bluecam |
| Trueness: 49.0 µm | ||||
| Precision: 30.9 µm | ||||
| Lava COS | ||||
| Trueness: 40.3 µm | ||||
| Precision: 60.1 µm | ||||
| Patzelt et al.[20] | In vitro | Model with 14 prepared abutments | iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava COS, and Zfx IntraScan | Cerec bluecam |
| Trueness: 332.9 µm | ||||
| Precision: 99.1 µm | ||||
| iTero | ||||
| Trueness: 49.6 µm | ||||
| Precision: 40.5 µm | ||||
| Lava COS | ||||
| Trueness: 38.0 µm | ||||
| Precision: 37.9 µm | ||||
| Zfx Intrascan: | ||||
| Trueness: 73.7 µm | ||||
| Precision: 90.2 µm | ||||
| Patzelt et al.[21] | In vitro | Edentulous jaw models | CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava Chairside Oral Scanner COS, iTero, Zfx IntraScan | CEREC AC Bluecam |
| Trueness | ||||
| Maxilla: 591.8 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 558.4 µm | ||||
| Precision | ||||
| Maxilla: 332.4 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 698.0 µm | ||||
| ITero | ||||
| Trueness | ||||
| Maxilla: 144.2 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 191.5 µm | ||||
| Precision | ||||
| Maxilla: 178.5 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 197.9 µm | ||||
| Lava Chairside Oral Scanner COS | ||||
| Trueness | ||||
| Maxilla: 52.9 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 44.1 µm | ||||
| Precision | ||||
| Maxilla: 30.8 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 21.6 µm | ||||
| Zfx IntraScan | ||||
| Trueness | ||||
| Maxilla: 283.8 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 283.8 µm | ||||
| Precision | ||||
| Maxilla: 425.3 µm | ||||
| Mandible: 319.4 µm | ||||
| Patzelt et al.[22] | In vitro | Full-arch polyurethane cast (14 prepared abutments) | iTero, Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, CEREC AC Bluecam | Lava Chairside Oral Scanner |
| Trueness: 67.50 µm | ||||
| Precision: 13.77 µm | ||||
| iTero | ||||
| Trueness: 98.23 µm | ||||
| Precision: 48.83 µm | ||||
| CEREC AC Bluecam | ||||
| Trueness: 75.80 µm | ||||
| Precision: 21.62 µm | ||||
| Ender and Mehl[23] | In vitro | Steel reference model fabricated from maxillary impression with two full crown and one inlay preparation | CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, Cadent iTero, Lava COS | CEREC Bluecam |
| Trueness: 29.4 µm | ||||
| Precision: 19.5 µm | ||||
| CEREC Omnicam | ||||
| Trueness: 37.3 µm | ||||
| Precision: 35.5 µm | ||||
| Cadent iTero | ||||
| Trueness: 32.4 µm | ||||
| Precision: 36.4 µm | ||||
| Lava COS | ||||
| Trueness: 44.9 µm | ||||
| Precision: 63.0 µm | ||||
| Ender et al.[24] | In vivo | Five participants with a complete dentition | CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, Cadent iTero, Lava COS, True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS, 3Shape TRIOS Color | CEREC Bluecam |
| Precision: 56.4 µm | ||||
| CEREC Omnicam | ||||
| Precision: 48.6 µm | ||||
| Cadent iTero | ||||
| Precision: 68.1 µm | ||||
| Lava COS | ||||
| Precision: 82.8 µm | ||||
| True Definition Scanner | ||||
| Precision: 59.7 µm | ||||
| 3Shape TRIOS | ||||
| Precision: 47.5 µm | ||||
| 3Shape TRIOS Color | ||||
| Precision: 42.9 µm | ||||
| Su and Sun[25] | In vitro | |||
| Nissin Dental Study Model (upper jaw) with prepared abutments designed to form 5 set of arrangements Arrangement 1: Single prepared maxillary central incisor Arrangement 2: Single prepared maxillary first molar Arrangement 3: Prepared central incisor and canine with the lateral incisor absent Arrangement 4: Half of the upper arch with 7 prepared teeth Arrangement 5: Entire upper arch with 14 prepared teeth |
TRIOS intraoral digital scanner | TRIOS Precision for arrangement 1: 13.33 µm Precision for arrangement 2: 7.0 µm Precision for arrangement 3: 16.33 µm Precision for arrangement 4: 41.56 µm Precision for arrangement 5: 88.44 µm |
||
| Hack and Patzelt[26] | In vitro | Typodont teeth - first right maxillary molar Prepared for an all-ceramic embedded in acrylic | iTero, True Definition, PlanScan, CS 3500, TRIOS, CEREC AC OmniCam | iTero |
| Trueness: 9.8 µm | ||||
| Precision: 7.0 µm | ||||
| True Definition | ||||
| Trueness: 10.3 µm | ||||
| Precision: 6.1 µm | ||||
| PlanScan | ||||
| Trueness: 30.9 µm | ||||
| Precision: 26.4 µm | ||||
| CS 3500 | ||||
| Trueness: 9.8 µm | ||||
| Precision: 7.2 µm | ||||
| TRIOS | ||||
| Trueness: 6.9 µm | ||||
| Precision: 4.5 µm | ||||
| CEREC AC OmniCam | ||||
| Trueness: 45.2 µm | ||||
| Precision: 16.2 µm | ||||
| Jeong et al.[27] | In vitro | Maxillary complete-arch of unprepared teeth | CEREC Omnicam, CEREC Bluecam | CEREC Omnicam |
|
Trueness: 197.0 µm | ||||
|
Precision: 58.0 µm | ||||
| CEREC Bluecam | ||||
|
Trueness: 378.0 µm | ||||
|
Precision: 116.0 µm | ||||
| Renne et al.[28] | In vitro | Custom maxillary complete-arch model scanned for posterior sextant and complete arch | CEREC omnicam, CEREC Bluecam, Planmeca Planscan, Cadent iTero, Carestream 3500, 3Shape TRIOS 3 | CEREC Omnicam |
| Trueness: 101.5 µm | ||||
| Precision: 133.4 µm | ||||
| CEREC Bluecam | ||||
| Trueness: 140.5 µm | ||||
| Precision: 194.2 µm | ||||
| Planmeca Planscan | ||||
| Trueness: 96.2 µm | ||||
| Precision: 124.6 µm | ||||
| Cadent iTero | ||||
| Trueness: 56.2 µm | ||||
| Precision: 89.4 µm | ||||
| Carestream 3500 | ||||
| Trueness: 76.0 µm | ||||
| Precision: 113.8 µm | ||||
| 3Shape TRIOS 3 | ||||
| Trueness: 69.4 µm | ||||
| Precision: 105.6 µm | ||||
| Lee et al.[29] | In vitro | Single prepared molar tooth for crown (PMMA) | CEREC Omnicam, Cerec Bluecam | Cerec Bluecam |
| Trueness: 17.5 µm | ||||
| Precision: 12.7 µm | ||||
| CEREC Omnicam | ||||
| Trueness: 13.8 µm | ||||
| Precision: 12.5 µm | ||||
| Kim et al.[30] | In vitro | Mandibular quadrant model (resin) with 4 prepared teeth, and 2 arrangements With edentulous area With alumina landmark on the middle of the edentulous area |
CS3500, Cerec Omnicam, TRIOS | CS3500 |
| Trueness with no marker: 38.8 µm | ||||
| Trueness with marker: 26.7 µm | ||||
| Precision with no marker: 43.6 µm | ||||
| Precision with marker: 12.4 µm | ||||
| Cerec Omnicam | ||||
| Trueness with marker: 31.8 µm | ||||
| Precision with marker: 10.5 µm TS | ||||
| TRIOS | ||||
| Trueness with no marker: 36.1 µm | ||||
| Trueness with marker: 30.6 µm | ||||
| Precision with no marker: 13.0 µm | ||||
| Precision with marker: 9.2 µm | ||||
| Park[31] | In vitro | Maxillary arch model containing five prepared teeth | E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, TRIOS, Zfx Intrascan | E4D |
| Trueness: 114.2 µm | ||||
| Precision: 97.6 µm | ||||
| Fastscan | ||||
| Trueness: 45.2 µm | ||||
| Precision: 26.0 µm | ||||
| iTero | ||||
| Trueness: 52.1 µm | ||||
| Precision: 25.8 µm | ||||
| TRIOS | ||||
| Trueness: 49.7 µm | ||||
| Precision: 13.0 µm | ||||
| Zfx Intrascan | ||||
| Trueness: 89.4 µm | ||||
| Precision: 132.3 µm | ||||
| Kuhr et al.[32] | In vivo | Complete lower arch natural dentition with 4 metal spheres, Measuring the linear distance between the center of the spheres that correspond to a) Intercanine distance b) Intermolar distance c) Diagonal distances d) Segment distances |
CEREC Omnicam, True Definition, TRIOS | The control group (polyether impression) showed the lowest deviation for all the distances followed by True Definition, TRIOS and Cerec Omnicam greatest deviation was observed for inter molar distance |
| Anh et al.[33] | In vitro | Maxillary arch of unprepared teeth with different degree of crowding Arch 1: Ideal arch Arch 2: Mild crowding Arch 3: Moderate crowding Arch 4: Severe crowding |
iTero, TRIOS | iTero |
| Arch 1: 28.2 µm | ||||
| Arch 2: 29.6 µm | ||||
| Arch 3: 28.4 µm | ||||
| Arch 4: 33.2 µm | ||||
| TRIOS | ||||
| Arch 1: 23.8 µm | ||||
| Arch 2: 21.9 µm | ||||
| Arch 3: 21.0 µm | ||||
| Arch 4: 22.0 µm | ||||
| Güth et al.[34] | In vitro | A titanium model with a premolar and molar with a chamfer preparation representing the base for a four-unit FPD | CS 3500, Zfx Intrascan, CEREC AC Bluecam, CEREC AC Omnicam, True Definition | CS 3500 |
| Trueness: 14.0 µm | ||||
| Zfx Intrascan | ||||
| Trueness: 33.0 µm | ||||
| CEREC AC Bluecam | ||||
| Trueness: 29.0 µm | ||||
| CEREC AC Omnicam | ||||
| Trueness: 31.0 µm | ||||
| True Definition | ||||
| Trueness: 11.0 µm | ||||
| Nedelcu et al.[35] | In vitro | Dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line | 3M True Definition, Care- stream CS3500 CS3600, Dental wings IOS, Omnicam, Planscan, and TRIOS | Accuracy in term of resolution of triangles |
| TRIOS: 23.5000 | ||||
| IMPR: 18.000 | ||||
| Dental wings: 14.500 | ||||
| Omnicam: 12.000 | ||||
| CS3500: 11.000 | ||||
| 3M: 9000 | ||||
| CS3600: 8.500 | ||||
| Planscan: 7.500 | ||||
| Treesh et al.[36] | In vitro | Maxillary complete-arch reference cast | CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, 3Shape TRIOS Carestream CS 3500 | CEREC Bluecam |
| Trueness: 37.4 µm | ||||
| Precision: 27.6 µm | ||||
| CEREC Omnicam | ||||
| Trueness: 48.8 µm | ||||
| Precision: 40.2 µm | ||||
| 3Shape TRIOS | ||||
| Trueness: 45.8 µm | ||||
| Precision: 40.4 µm | ||||
| Carestream CS 3500 | ||||
| Trueness: 84.6 µm | ||||
| Precision: 90.4 µm | ||||
| Kim et al.[1] | In vitro | Bimaxillary complete-arch model with various cavity preparations (epoxy resin) | CEREC Omnicam, CS 3500, E4D Dentist, iTero, PlanScan, TRIOS, True Definition, Zfx IntraScan, FastScan | Trueness according to capture principle |
| Confocal microscopy: 49.35 µm | ||||
| Triangulation: 73.50 µm | ||||
| Swept source optical coherence tomography: 137.0 µm | ||||
| Wavefront sampling: 43.50 µm | ||||
| Trueness according to data capturing mode | ||||
| Individual images: 70.55 µm | ||||
| Video sequence: 56.45 µm | ||||
| Trueness according to Powder coating | ||||
| Yes (need for coating): 46.70 µm | ||||
| No (no nned for coating): 79.05 µm | ||||
| Lee[37] | In vivo | 32 participates were scan for maxillary as well as mandibular arch | TRIOS and iTero | Average deviations between the two intraoral scans were 0.057 mm in the maxilla and 0.069 mm in the mandible |
| Malik et al.[38] | In vitro | Model of a maxillary arch form | TRIOS, 3Shape, CEREC Omnicam, Sirona | TRIOS, 3Shape |
| Trueness: 87.1 µm | ||||
| Precision:49.9 µm | ||||
| CEREC Omnicam, Sirona | ||||
| Trueness: 80.3 µm | ||||
| Precision: 36.5 µm | ||||
| Rehmann et al.[39] | In vitro | Laser-sintered cobalt-chromium master model of maxillary arch with 3 prepared teeth | CEREC Bluecam (decalibrated), CEREC Bluecam (calibrated), Lave Chairside Oral Scanner (decalibrated), Lave Chairside Oral Scanner (calibrated), iTero scanner (control scanner) | CEREC Bluecam (decalibrated) |
| Trueness: 108.4 μm | ||||
| CEREC Bluecam (calibrated) | ||||
| Trueness: 16.5 μm | ||||
| Lave Chairside Oral Scanner (decalibrated) | ||||
| Trueness: 80.9 μm | ||||
| Lave Chairside Oral Scanner (calibrated) | ||||
| Trueness: 34.9 μm | ||||
| iTero scanner (control scanner) | ||||
| Trueness: 24.4 μm | ||||
| Müller et al.[40] | In vitro | cobalt-chromium alloy master maxillary model with 3 prepared teethThree different scanning strategies were used a) Buccal-occlusal surface of the whole arch followed by occlusal-palatal surface b) Occlusal-palatal surface of the whole arch followed by buccal-occlusal surface c) Alternating between the buccal, occlusal and palatal surface of each tooth and moving along the arch) |
TRIOS | |
| Buccal-occlusal then occlusal-palatal scanning strategy | ||||
| Trueness: 17.9 μm | ||||
| Precision: 35.0 μm | ||||
| Occlusal-palatal then buccal-occlusal scanning strategy | ||||
| Trueness: 17.5 μm | ||||
| Precision: 7.9 μm | ||||
| Alternation between buccal, occlusal, and palatal surface scanning strategy | ||||
| Trueness: 26.8 μm | ||||
| Precision: 8.5 μm | ||||
| Ali[41] | In vitro | Model 3 unit fixed partial denture abutments (epoxy resin) | CadentiTero, Lava COS, CEREC Bluecam, E4D Dentist | CadentiTero |
| Trueness: 23.0 μm | ||||
| Lava COS | ||||
| Trueness: 36.0 μm | ||||
| CEREC Bluecam | ||||
| Trueness: 68.0 μm | ||||
| E4D Dentist | ||||
| Trueness: 84.0 μm |
IOS: Intraoral scanner, FDP: Fixed partial denture