Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners

Joshua C. Treesh, Peter C. Liacouras, Robert M. Taft, Daniel I. Brooks, Sorana Raiciulescu, Daniel O. Ellert, Gerald T. Grant, Ling Ye*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

92 Scopus citations


Statement of problem: Intraoral scanners have shown varied results in complete-arch applications. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the complete-arch accuracy of 4 intraoral scanners based on trueness and precision measurements compared with a known reference (trueness) and with each other (precision). Material and methods: Four intraoral scanners were evaluated: CEREC Bluecam, CEREC Omnicam, TRIOS Color, and Carestream CS 3500. A complete-arch reference cast was created and printed using a 3-dimensional dental cast printer with photopolymer resin. The reference cast was digitized using a laboratory-based white light 3-dimensional scanner. The printed reference cast was scanned 10 times with each intraoral scanner. The digital standard tessellation language (STL) files from each scanner were then registered to the reference file and compared with differences in trueness and precision using a 3-dimensional modeling software. Additionally, scanning time was recorded for each scan performed. The Wilcoxon signed rank, Kruskal-Wallis, and Dunn tests were used to detect differences for trueness, precision, and scanning time (α=.05). Results: Carestream CS 3500 had the lowest overall trueness and precision compared with Bluecam and TRIOS Color. The fourth scanner, Omnicam, had intermediate trueness and precision. All of the scanners tended to underestimate the size of the reference file, with exception of the Carestream CS 3500, which was more variable. Based on visual inspection of the color rendering of signed differences, the greatest amount of error tended to be in the posterior aspects of the arch, with local errors exceeding 100 μm for all scans. The single capture scanner Carestream CS 3500 had the overall longest scan times and was significantly slower than the continuous capture scanners TRIOS Color and Omnicam. Conclusions: Significant differences in both trueness and precision were found among the scanners. Scan times of the continuous capture scanners were faster than the single capture scanners.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)382-388
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Issue number3
StatePublished - Sep 2018
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this