Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Scanners: Are They the Better Option?
- 742 Downloads
Purpose of Review
The aim was to compare the accuracy of digital intraoral impressions with conventional impressions on the fabrication of different types of restorations. This study also compared the accuracy, reliability, and ease of use of different types of intraoral scanners available and correlated the results with the different scanning technologies.
Digital impressions offer the same level of accuracy as conventional impressions regarding fabrication of crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), implant-supported crowns, and short-span FDPs with marginal gap values within the clinically acceptable range (<120 μm). However, for full-arch restorations, conventional impressions result in better accuracy.
Further enhancements needs to be undertaken regarding intraoral scanners to improve its accuracy regarding fabrication of full-arch restorations. Further in vivo studies evaluating the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions on the fabrication of a wider range of restorations such as inlays, veneers, and full-arch restoration need to be conducted.
KeywordsCAD/CAM Digital dentistry Marginal gap Intraoral scanners Digital impressions
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of Particular Interest, Published Recently, Have Been Highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 7.• Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont. 2016; A recent similar review about intra-oral scanners. Google Scholar
- 8.• Logozzo S, Zanetti EM, Franceschini G, Kilpelä A, Mäkynen A. Recent advances in dental optics–part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Optics and lasers in engineering. 2014;54:203–21. This review discusses in depth the physics behind different scanning technologies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.•• Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8:354–62. This article shows a direct comparison between 5 of the most widely used intra-oral scanners in the market.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Shembesh M, Ali A. Finkelman M. Weber HP: Zandparsa R. An In Vitro Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation Accuracy of CAD/CAM Restorations Using Different Impression Systems. J Prosthodont; 2016.Google Scholar
- 21.Zeltner M, Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Ozcan M, Hammerle CH, Benic GI. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;Google Scholar
- 23.•• Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin oral Investig. 2016;20:291–300. One of the view in-vivo studies studying the accuracy of intra-oral digital impression. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.• Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 The only study correlating the effect of adding an artifial landmark on accuracy. Google Scholar
- 39.•• Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. 2016. This article shows a direct comparison between 5 of the most widely used intra-oral scanners in the market.Google Scholar
- 42.Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;Google Scholar