CLINICAL RESEARCH

Accuracy of intraoral scans: An in vivo study of different

scanning devices
Florian Kernen, Dr med dent, MS,a Stefan Schlager, PhD,b Veronica Seidel Alvarez, BS,c Jürgen Mehrhof, MDT,d
Kirstin Vach, MS,e Ralf Kohal, Prof Dr med dent,f Katja Nelson, Prof Dr med dent,g and
Tabea Flügge, Prof Dr med denth

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are ABSTRACT

routinely used to provide digital
information in clinical dentistry
for a range of situations
including diagnosis, restorative
dentistry, and implant-
supported restorations.1-3 A
prerequisite for intraoral scan-
ning is the accuracy of the
resulting virtual casts. Accuracy
is defined by 2 different terms:
precision and trueness (DIN
ISO 5725-2).4 Precision defines
the congruence between multi-
ple virtual casts of the same
anatomic structure. Trueness
describes the congruence be-
tween the actual anatomic
structure and its reproduction in
a virtual cast.
Statement of problem. The accuracy of intraoral scanners is a prerequisite for the fabrication of
dental restorations in computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM)
dentistry. While the precision of intraoral scanners has been investigated in vitro, clinical data on
the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) are limited.
Purpose. The purpose of this clinical study was to determine the accuracy of intraoral scanning
with different devices compared with extraoral scanning.
Material and methods. An experimental appliance was fabricated for 11 participants and then
scanned intraorally and extraorally with 3 different intraoral scanners and a reference scanner.
Intraoral and extraoral scans were subdivided into complete-arch and short-span scans and
compared with the reference scan to assess trueness. Repeated scans in each group were
assessed for precision.
Results. Precision and trueness were higher for extraoral scans compared with intraoral scans,
except for complete-arch scans with 1 intraoral scanner. The median precision of short-span
scans was higher (extraoral: 22 to 29 mm, intraoral: 23 to 43 mm) compared with complete-arch
scans (extraoral: 81 to 165 mm, intraoral: 80 to 198 mm). The median trueness of short-span scans
(extraoral: 28 to 40 mm, intraoral: 38 to 47 mm) was higher than that of complete-arch scans
(extraoral: 118 to 581 mm, intraoral: 147 to 433 mm) for intraoral and extraoral scanning.
Conclusions. Intraoral conditions negatively influenced the accuracy of the scanning devices,
which was also reduced for the complete-arch scans. (J Prosthet Dent 2021;-:---)

Supported by a grant (ORF42001) of the Oral Reconstruction Foundation, Basel, Switzerland. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision
to publish, or preparation of the paper.
a
Clinician Scientist, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Translational Implantology, Medical Center e University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of
Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
b
Anthropologist, Division of Biological Anthropology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; and Post-doctorate Scientist, Department of Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgery, Translational Implantology, Medical Center e University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
c
Doctorate Candidate, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Translational Implantology, Medical Center e University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of
Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
d
Master Dental Technician, Mehrhof Implant Technologies GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
e
Statistician, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Center e University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
f
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Medical Center e University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
g
Full Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Translational Implantology, Medical Center e University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg,
Freiburg, Germany.
h
Full Professor, Charité e Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery, Berlin, Germany; and Senior Research Scientist, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Translational Implantology, Medical Center e University of Freiburg,
Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 1

2 Volume
Clinical Implications
The accuracy of intraoral scans is a prerequisite for
the fabrication of dental restorations in CAD-CAM
dentistry. However, the longer the scanned distance
within the dental arch, the higher the inaccuracy.
Clinical intraoral scanning did not result in clinically
acceptable accuracy for complete-arch scans.
The precision of intraoral scans in vivo has been
assessed by repeated scanning and comparison of the
resulting virtual casts.5-8 The lower precision of intraoral
scans compared with that of extraoral scans has been
reported, and intraoral conditions including moisture,
salivary flow, and restricted space can complicate accu-
rate intraoral image acquisition.5,7
Trueness may be assessed in vitro by scanning an
experimental model with the respective intraoral scanner
and a reference scanner and comparing the resulting
virtual casts. This approach has been used to assess
trueness in vitro, but the trueness of IOSs has been re-
ported to decrease when acquiring a complete dental
arch compared with a short span.9-15
Trueness in vivo has been approximated by
comparing an intraoral scan with a virtual reference
model produced from a conventional impression. How-
ever, the conventional impression itself introduces inac-
curacy,16 and other studies have used different
approaches to study trueness. Nedelcu et al17 used an
industrial scanner and IOSs to acquire the facial surface
of the maxillary anterior teeth. This method captured
only a short span and did not evaluate the molar area
most prone to deviations or the complex acquisition of
multiple surfaces. Atieh et al18 focused on comparing
conventional impressions with an intraoral scanner by
using a reference appliance made from metal alloy. The
deviation of intraoral scans was measured only in small
areas distributed throughout the dental arch. Notably, in
previous studies, the scans were aligned by using a best-
fit algorithm including the complete surface before the
assessment of the deviations. With this method, the
deviations are arbitrarily averaged over the entire surface
and their spatial location is not reflected. This becomes
especially important when scanning larger areas, as po-
tential inaccuracies at the end of a long span are averaged
over the entire arch. This can be overcome by using a
different method of alignment as implemented in the
current study.
An experimental appliance comprising denture teeth
and reference bodies was fabricated and scanned intra-
orally with multiple scanners, as well as extraorally with a
reference scanner. Alignment of multiple scans was
selectively performed by using reference bodies, and the
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
- Issue -
Table 1. Study population with selected jaw, regions, and number of test
surfaces
Participant Jaw Regions of Test Surfaces
1 Mandible First premolar left, second premolars, first molars
2 Maxilla Second premolar left, first molars
3 Mandible Second premolars
4 Maxilla First premolars, second premolars, first molars
5 Mandible First premolar right, second premolars, first molars
6 Maxilla Second premolar left, first molars
7 Mandible First premolar left, second premolar left, first molars
8 Maxilla First premolar left, second premolars, first premolars
9 Mandible First premolars, second premolars
10 Maxilla First premolars right, second premolars, first molars
11 Mandible First molars
denture teeth were used to assess spatial deviations. The
authors are unaware of a previous study that examined
the trueness and precision of multiple IOSs in vivo and
assessed the spatial location of deviations. The research
hypotheses of the study were that the accuracy of IOSs
would be lower when used in the oral cavity and that
short-span scans would be acquired with higher preci-
sion and trueness than complete-arch scans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study included intraoral scanning of voluntary par-
ticipants using different IOSs and an individually fabri-
cated experimental appliance. The study protocol was
approved by the Institutional Review Board of the
Medical CenterdUniversity of Freiburg, Freiburg, Ger-
many (434/17), registered at the German Clinical Trial
Register (DRKS: 00014039), and performed in accordance
with the institutional research committee and the 1964
Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Study
participants were recruited in the Department of Oral
and Maxillofacial Surgery, Translational Implantology in
the University Medical Center Freiburg during July 2017
and July 2018. Participants gave written consent to the
study before inclusion.
Participants with partial edentulism in both posterior
regions of either the maxilla (n=6) or the mandible (n=5)
were selected (Table 1). This specific anatomic situation
was required for the placement of the experimental
appliance and the arrangement of scan objects. Table 1
displays the selected jaw and number and regions of
the test surfaces. Participants with limited mouth open-
ing or hard and soft tissue defects, including extended
scar tissues in the oral cavity, were excluded.
The experimental appliance was manufactured by
using a pink acrylic resin base plate, denture teeth, and
cylindrical reference bodies. A stone cast of the respective
jaw of each participant was poured from a conventional
irreversible hydrocolloid (Pluralgin Super; Pluradent)
impression. A visible light-polymerized denture base
Kernen et al
- 2021
Figure 1. A, Individually fabricated experimental appliance with reference objects (R1, R2, R3) and test surfaces represented by acrylic resin denture
teeth (T). B, Occlusal view of inserted appliance.
material (Megatray Basisplatte; Megadenta Dentalpro-
dukte GmbH) was adapted to cover the dentate and
edentulous areas of the arch. A geometric pattern of in-
dentations was created on the denture base material to
achieve a morphology that was easily captured by the
surface scanner. Cast denture teeth (SR Ivocron; Ivoclar
Vivadent AG) were fixed with an adhesive (Palapress;
Kulzer GmbH) to the base plate in both the premolar and
molar areas. Three cylindrical reference bodies (Strau-
mann Mono Scanbody, Art.032.041; Institut Straumann
AG) were fixed with the adhesive (Palapress) in the area
of the second molars bilaterally and in the anterior region
of the baseplate (Fig. 1). The experimental appliance was
designed to imitate the intraoral anatomy, including the
test surface and the pink acrylic resin base plate, and host
reference bodies for data registration and evaluation.
A reference data set of the experimental appliance
was established with a desktop optical scanner (S600
Arti; Zirkonzahn) with a manufacturer specified precision
of 10 mm. The accuracy of the acquired data was eval-
uated by using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM)
(DS 10; Renishaw). The positions of the reference objects
(R1-R3) were acquired with this high precision tactile
scanner (accuracy <5 mm) and used for verification.19
Comparison of the acquired optical scanner data with
the CMM data showed a median deviation of 22 mm
when using a best-fit registration algorithm.
The experimental appliance was scanned on the stone
cast with the following IOSs: TRIOS3, version 1.6.10.1
(3Shape A/S) (TR); CEREC Omnicam, version 4.6,
(Dentsply Sirona) (OC); True Definition, version 5.4 (3M)
(TD). Each scan was performed by 1 operator (F.K.) using
the manufacturer’s recommended scanning path. Each
scanner was used 3 times for extraoral scanning.
The respective experimental appliance was placed in
the mouth of the participant and cheek retractors and a
Kernen et al
3
saliva ejector were applied. Passivity was confirmed and
the appliance was fixed by using a denture adhesive
(Blend-a-dent Plus Haftcreme; Oral-B) Intraoral scans
were acquired by the same operator using the 3 scanning
devices, and 3 scans were made with each IOS. Caution
was used to scan only the intraoral device and not the
participant’s teeth because of the risk of movement of the
experimental appliance. The scheme for data acquisition
and evaluation are displayed in Figure 2.
Standard tessellation language (STL) files of the refer-
ence scans, extraoral scans, and intraoral scans were im-
ported into a 3D modeling software program (Meshmixer;
Autodesk Inc). The reference bodies and test surfaces were
cropped to prepare the scan for evaluation. The reference
bodies were used for the registration of multiple scans and
were therefore essential for the assessment of the spatial
location of the deviations. Registration was defined as the
3D alignment of multiple scans using common surface
information. The protocol for registration is displayed in
Table 2. To elaborate the critical mass of information for an
accurate registration, a randomly chosen scan was regis-
tered multiple times. Randomization was achieved by us-
ing a simple randomization sheet in Microsoft Excel
(Microsoft Corp) and applying it to all members of the
study population. Registration was performed with 1
reference body (R1), 2 reference bodies (R1, R2), and 3
reference bodies (R1, R2, R3), respectively. The comparison
showed no differences in registration accuracy. Therefore,
the final assessment of deviations was performed by using
1 reference body (R1 or R3) at each distal site. The test
surfaces were used for the measurement of deviations
between scans.
The registration of only 1 selected scan body was
performed by using a best-fit registration algorithm
based on an iterative closest point search procedure.20
The scan body surfaces were first aligned according to
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
4 Volume - Issue -

Statistical analysis of the median deviations for each

T1
R2

T2
test group was performed by using a mixed linear
Precision
Trueness
intraoral
T2 intraoral regression model and Bonferroni correction after pairwise
scan

R2
scan R1 R3
comparisons (Stata Statistical Software: StataCorp. 2017.
T1 T2 3 intraoral scans Release 15; StataCorp LLC) (a=.05).
T2

R1 R3

R2
Trueness
Reference scan
extraoral T1 T2 Precision RESULTS
scan T2 extraoral
scan
R1 R3 A total of 11 participants were enrolled in the study.
3 extraoral scans Three extraoral and 3 intraoral scans with each of the 3
IOSs resulted in 9 extraoral scans and 9 intraoral scans
Figure 2. Number of scans and comparisons for assessment of precision
and trueness.
per participant.
The median precision of extraoral scanning of short
spans was 29 mm (TD), 22 mm (TR), and 23 mm (OC)
(Fig. 3, Table 3). The median precision of extraoral
Table 2. Protocol for registration of multiple scans and evaluation of
scanning of long spans was 165 mm (TD), 81 mm (TR),
deviations between surfaces and interpretation of results with regard to
scan length
and 103 mm (OC) (Fig. 3, Table 3).
Registration Evaluation Result
The median precision for intraoral scanning of short
R1 T1 Short span
spans was 31 mm (TD), 23 mm (TR), 43 mm (OC) (Fig. 4,
R1 T2 Long span R2 Table 3). The median precision of intraoral scanning of
R3 T2 Short span T1 T2 long spans was 153 mm (TD), 80 mm (TR), and 198 mm
R3 T1 Long span T2 (OC) (Fig. 4, Table 3).
The median trueness of extraoral scanning of short
R1 R3
spans was 40 mm for TD, 28 mm for TR, and 36 mm when
using OC (Table 3). The median trueness of extraoral
scanning of long spans was 581 mm (95th percentile: 1387
mm) (TD), 132 mm (TR), and 118 mm (OC) (Table 3).
their principle axis, and then an iterative closest point The median trueness of intraoral scanning of short
search was performed. This was done by finding the spans was 47 mm (TD), 38 mm (TR), and 45 mm (OC)
closest point on the target surface. Correspondences (Fig. 5, Table 3). The median trueness of intraoral scan-
pointing in the wrong direction (normal vectors) were ning of long spans was 433 mm (TD), 147 mm (TR), and
discarded. Of the remaining corresponding points, those 198 mm (OC) (Fig. 6, Table 3).
further away than the 90th percentile of distances were The precision of the IOSs was significantly different
discarded to avoid invalid registration results. Based on for extraoral and intraoral long-span scans. Pairwise
these correspondences, the reference was iteratively comparison showed significantly higher precision for
rotated to the target surface. Finally, the transformation extraoral long-span scans with TR compared with TD
was applied to the entire scan. (P=.005) and intraoral long-span scans with TR
To evaluate the mesh discrepancies, the (unsigned) compared with OC (P<.001) and TR compared with TD
distance for each vertex in the region of interest on the (P<.001). The intraoral and extraoral precision of short-
reference mesh to the surface of the aligned scans was span scans was significantly higher than for long-span
recorded. This resulted in tens of thousands of error scans for all scanners (P<.001).
values per alignment that were averaged per vertex over The trueness of the IOSs was significantly different
all iterations and then accumulated over all participants.7 except for intraoral short-span scans (P=.87). Pairwise
Mesh alignment and error assessment were performed comparison showed lower trueness of TD compared with
by using the mathematical and statistical platform R and TR (P<.001) and OC (P<.001) for extraoral and intraoral
specifically the R-packages Rvcg, Morpho, and long-span scans, and extraoral short-span scans. The
mesheR.21-23 intraoral and extraoral trueness of short-span scans was
The primary end point was the precision of intraoral significantly higher than for long-span scans for all
and extraoral scanning with 3 different scanners, evalu- scanners (P<.001).
ated by comparing the 3 consecutive scans in each group
with 1 randomly selected scan as the reference. The
DISCUSSION
secondary end point was the trueness of intraoral and
extraoral scanning with 3 different IOSs, assessed by The results of the present clinical study supported the
aligning the 3 consecutive scans in each group with the hypotheses that the accuracy of IOS would be lower
virtual reference model. when used in the oral cavity and that short-span scans

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Kernen et al

- 2021 5

Table 3. Median of precision and trueness of IOSs TD, OC, and TR for
extraoral and intraoral scanning
400 Precision (mm) Trueness (mm)
Short Extraoral (95th Intraoral (95th Extraoral (95th Intraoral (95th
Span Percentile) Percentile) Percentile) Percentile)
µ)
Precision (uµ

300 TR 22 (123) 23 (125) 28 (120) 38 (214)

OC 23 (231) 43 (244) 36 (146) 45 (190)
TD 29 (129) 31 (179) 40 (174) 47 (195)
200
Long Extraoral (95th Intraoral (95th Extraoral (95th Intraoral (95th
Span Percentile) Percentile) Percentile) Percentile)
100 TR 81 (421) 80 (281) 132 (413) 147 (461)
OC 103 (626) 198 (538) 118 (496) 198 (499)
TD 165 (392) 153 (448) 581 (1387) 433 (1029)
0
Short Long Short Long Short Long
span span span span span span
Short Span
True Definition TRIOS Omnicam 200
Figure 3. Box plot for precision of TD, TR, and OC when used for
extraoral scanning. Values of deviation given in mm. Boxplots do not
show outliers, that is, whiskers restricted to maximum length of 1.5 times 150

Trueness (uµ)
interquartile range.

100

600 50
Precision (uµ)

0
400 True definition TRIOS Omnicam
Figure 5. Trueness of intraoral scanning of TD, TR, and OC for short span.
Values of deviation given in mm. Boxplots do not show outliers, that is,
200 whiskers restricted to maximum length of 1.5 times interquartile range.

The precision and trueness of IOSs have been previ-

0 ously studied in vitro using typodonts, master models
Short Long Short Long Short Long
span span span span span span
True Definition TRIOS Omnicam
Figure 4. Box plot for precision of IOSs TD, TR, and OC when used for
intraoral scanning. Values of deviation given in mm. Boxplots do not
show outliers, that is, whiskers restricted to maximum length of 1.5 times
interquartile range.
would be acquired with higher precision and trueness
than complete-arch scans. The accuracy of intraoral scans
in vivo was significantly lower than for extraoral scans
using 3 different intraoral scanning devices. The authors
are unaware of a previous study that has investigated the
precision and trueness of multiple IOSs in vivo. Median
deviations of the trueness of long-span intraoral scans
in vivo totaled 433 mm. Partially edentulous participants
were enrolled in this study, as the experimental appliance
required sufficient space for the arrangement of scan
objects within the dental arch. Denture base material
with a dull surface was chosen based on Schnuth and
Buerakov24. Surfaces that were difficult to scan, such as
reflecting, transparent, or shiny surfaces, were avoided.
fabricated from metal alloy, or cadaver jaws.9-15 The
precision of the IOSs used both extraorally and intra-
orally were comparable with the findings of previous
studies with regard to short-span scans.6,10 The precision
of long-span scans was lower in this study compared
with the previous studies, presumably because of the
method of alignment. The reported precision of long-
span scans in vitro was 30 to 42 mm (OC) compared
with the present findings of 103 mm (OC).10,11 The pre-
cision of long-span scans in vivo was 41 mm (TR), 46 and
71 mm (OC), and 52 mm (TD) compared with 80 mm (TR),
198 mm (OC), and 153 mm (TD) in the present study.
However, the study confirmed the previous findings that
long-span intraoral scans in vivo have lower precision
than extraoral model scans.5-7 Restricted intraoral space
and humidity, as well as the image acquisition technol-
ogy of IOSs, may have influenced the data acquisition.3,25
An intraoral scanner incrementally acquires single im-
ages that are stitched together into a virtual model. Minor
displacements in every stitching may add up to a relevant
deviation.1 Optical desktop scanners project a light or
laser pattern on the complete object surface and acquire

Kernen et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

6 Volume
Long Span
1000
Trueness (uµ)
500
0
True definition TRIOS Omnicam
Figure 6. Trueness of intraoral scanning of TD, TR, and OC for complete-
arch. Values of deviation given in mm. Boxplots do not show outliers, that
is, whiskers restricted to maximum length of 1.5 times interquartile
range.
its reflection for virtual model creation. A subsequent
stitching of single images, potentially prone to error, is
therefore not necessary.26
The results of this study for the trueness of scanning
short spans in vitro using 2 scanners (TR, OC) was
consistent with those of previous studies.10,12,15 Previous
studies on the trueness of scanning long spans in vitro
have been inconclusive. Values between 33 and 119 mm
(OC) and 32 and 70 mm (TR) have been reported.9-11,13,15
Therefore, the deviations within this study with 132 mm
(TR) are higher than those previously reported and with
118 mm (OC) comparable with those of reported by
previous studies.
The study found an exceptionally lower trueness for
the extraoral and intraoral scanning of long spans with
1 scanner (TD) compared with the other devices. The
authors are unaware of previous studies on the trueness
of long-span scans with this intraoral scanner. Notably,
the trueness of short-span scans was comparable with
that of the other IOSs. The reasons for the unexcep-
tional high deviations (median 581 for trueness
extraoral/433 mm for trueness intraoral) could be
explained by the design of the experimental appliance.
The respective scanner might not adequately acquire
the composite design (including teeth, reference
bodies, and edentulous areas) of the long span to
render a complete-arch virtual model.
The trueness of IOSs in vivo has only been assessed
in 2 previous studies. 17,18 Whereas Nedelcu et al17
used an industrial optical scanner to acquire the
facial surface of the anterior teeth and premolars of the
maxilla in study participants and compared them with
images acquired with intraoral scans, Atieh et al18
used a test object in the shape of a denture that was
scanned with 1 intraoral scanner (OC) and with an
optical reference scanner to create a virtual reference
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
- Issue -
model. In addition to the restriction of only scanning 1
surface of anterior teeth, Nedelcu et al17 also did not
state numerical values for the trueness, making a
comparison impossible. Atieh et al 18 reported a mean
deviation between long-span intraoral scans and the
reference model (trueness) of 46 mm. However, they
recorded deviations in the molar areas of 140 mm in
60% of the intraoral scans and 250 mm in 28% of the
intraoral scans.
Alignment of the intraoral scans was achieved with
the registration of only 1 selected scan body. This allowed
the consideration of spatial deviations on test surfaces
(teeth). The alignment based solely on the reference
bodies ensures that the error was not arbitrarily averaged
over the entire scan, as this would mask the effect of the
subsequent “stitching” of partial scans as performed by
all 3 scanner models. This was hypothesized to lead to an
increased error relative to the size of the scan area.
Previous studies aligned scans using the complete
model surface. The same surface was consecutively used
to evaluate deviations.5,6,8,18 This procedure masks the
spatial allocation of the deviation by arbitrarily aver-
aging the error over the entire surface and might
therefore be a contributing factor to the divergent
results.
A threshold for the clinically acceptable accuracy of
impressions or intraoral scans is currently lacking. The
marginal fit of a dental restoration could be used as a
measure for acceptable accuracy. The fit of dental res-
torations, however, is not only dependent on the
impression or scan accuracy but also on the complete
workflow with impressions or scans as a first step,
followed by the manufacture of the cast and the
restoration and its intraoral delivery. Each step in the
workflow might introduce an error that adds to the
marginal discrepancies. Values for marginal discrep-
ancies of prosthetic devices between 18 and 119 mm
have been stated.27-29 The American Dental Associa-
tion states that the proper fit of a fixed prosthesis
ranges from 25 to 40 mm (ADA No. 8, ADA 1970/71).
The trueness of all the IOSs tested in this study was
lower, with deviations well above 100 mm for quadrant
and complete-arch impressions.
In this study, no different scanning paths were eval-
uated for the respective IOSs. However, the manufac-
turer recommendations for scanning paths were
followed. Previous in vitro studies have shown that the
scanning path does not significantly influence the accu-
racy of quadrant scans, that the accuracy of complete-
arch scans depends on the scanning path, and that
manufacturer recommendations are better than individ-
ual scanning protocols.11,12 Furthermore, it must be taken
into account that the experimental appliance did show 1
possible intraoral morphological situation in every
participant.
Kernen et al
- 2021
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this clinical study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. Intraoral scanning showed lower accuracy
compared with extraoral scanning.
2. The accuracy of IOSs was negatively influenced by
the length of the scanned distance.
3. Intraoral scanning resulted in clinically unacceptable
accuracy for virtual models of long-span scans.
REFERENCES
1. Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent ad-
vances in dental opticsepart I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry.
Opt Laser Eng 2014;54:203-21.
2. Flügge TV, Nelson K, Schmelzeisen R, Metzger MC. Three-dimensional
plotting and printing of an implant drilling guide: simplifying guided implant
surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:1340-6.
3. Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The
accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported
dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants
Res 2018;29:374-92.
4. DIN ISO 5725-2. Accuracy trueness and precision of measurement methods
and results: a basic method for the determination of repeatability and
reproducibility of a standard measurement method. Available at: https://
www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-2:ed-2:v1:en. Accessed February 10,
2020.
5. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital
methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent
2016;115:313-20.
6. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional
and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral
Investig 2016;20:1495-504.
7. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral
digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero
and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-8.
8. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of
guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac
Orthop 2017;78:466-71.
9. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and
digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int
2015;46:9-17.
10. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch
impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent
2019;22:11-9.
11. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan
pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent
2020;123:85-95.
12. Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Lauer AW, Patel RB, Ludlow ME, Renne WG. Eval-
uation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six
intraoral digital impression systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2018;30:113-8.
13. Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Nash J, Bocklet C, Lauer Kelly A, Bacro T, et al. Eval-
uation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a
human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a
laboratory scanner. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31:369-77.
14. Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan stra-
tegies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintes-
sence Int 2016;47:343-9.
15. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al.
Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on
3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:36-42.
16. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ,
Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed
Kernen et al
7
prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent
2016;116:184-90.e12.
17. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3
intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo
analysis method. J Dent 2018;69:110-8.
18. Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral
optical impressions: a clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet
Dent 2017;118:400-5.
19. Puertas I, Luis Pérez CJ, Salcedo D, León J, Luri R, Fuertes JP. Precision study
of a coordinate measuring machine using several contact probes. Procedia
Eng 2013;63:547-55.
20. Audette MA, Ferrie FP, Peters TM. An algorithmic overview of surface regis-
tration techniques for medical imaging. Med Image Anal 2000;4:201-17.
21. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2020.
Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed February 10, 2020.
22. Schlager S. Chapter 9: Morpho and Rvcg e shape analysis in R: R-Packages
for geometric morphometrics, shape analysis and surface manipulations. In:
Zheng G, Li S, Szekely G, editors. Statistical shape and deformation analysis.
Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2017. p. 217-56.
23. Schlager S. mesheR: meshing operations on triangular meshes. 2015.
Available at: http://github.com/zarquon42b/mesheR. Accessed November 20,
2020.
24. Schuth M, Buerakov W. Handbuch Optische Messtechnik: Praktische
Anwendungen für Entwicklung, Versuch, Fertigung und Qual-
itätssicherung. München, Germany: Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co KG;
2017.
25. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of
influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26:101-21.
26. Persson A, Andersson M, Oden A, Sandborgh-Englund G. A three-dimen-
sional evaluation of a laser scanner and a touch-probe scanner. J Prosthet
Dent 2006;95:194-200.
27. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay castings. J Prosthet Dent 1966;16:
297-305.
28. Belser UC, MacEntee MI, Richter WA. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal
marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet
Dent 1985;53:24-9.
29. Fransson B, Oilo G, Gjeitanger R. The fit of metal-ceramic crowns, a clinical
study. Dent Mater 1985;1:197-9.
Corresponding author:
Dr Florian Kernen
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Translational Implantology
University Medical Center Freiburg
Hugstetter St 55
Freiburg 79106
GERMANY
Email: florian.kernen@uniklinik-freiburg.de
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Siegbert Witkowski for his advice and support with the design
and production of the experimental appliance and to Johannes Wietschorke for
his support with the conduction of clinical procedures.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Florian Kernen: Validation, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing. Stefan Schlager: Software, Formal analysis,
Data curation. Veronica Seidel Alvarez: Data curation, Investigation, Writing -
review & editing. Jürgen Mehrhof: Resources, Validation. Kirstin Vach: Formal
analysis, Writing - review & editing. Ralf Kohal: Resources, Writing - review &
editing. Katja Nelson: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing - re-
view & editing. Tabea Flügge: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project
administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Copyright © 2021 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.03.007
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY