In vitro evaluation of the impact of intraoral scanner, scanning aids, and the scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of complete maxillary and mandibular edentulous arch scans obtained using two different intraoral scanners (IOSs), with and without scanning aids, and to compare these results to those obtained using conventional impression methods.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

Two IOSs were used (TRIOS 4 [TRI] and Emerald S [EMR]) to scan maxillary and mandibular typodonts. The typodonts were scanned without scanning aids [TRI_WSA and EMR_WSA groups] (n = 10). The typodonts were then scanned under four scanning aid conditions (n = 10): composite markers [TRI_MRK and EMR_MRK groups], scanning spray [TRI_SPR and EMR_SPR groups], pressure indicating paste [TRI_PIP and EMR_PIP groups], and liquid-type scanning aid [TRI_LQD and EMR_LQD groups]. Conventional impressions of both arches were also made using irreversible hydrocolloids in stock trays [IHC] and using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material in custom trays (n = 10) which were digitized using a laboratory scanner. Using a metrology software program, all scans were compared to a reference scan in order to assess trueness and to each other to assess precision. Trueness and precision were expressed as the root mean square (RMS) of the absolute deviation values and the statistical analysis was modeled on a logarithmic scale using fixed-effects models to meet model assumptions (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The main effect of arch (p = 0.004), scanner (p < 0.001), scanning aid (p = 0.041), and the interaction between scanner and scanning aid (p = 0.027) had a significant effect on mean RMS values of trueness. The arch (p = 0.015) and scanner (p < 0.001) had a significant effect on the mean RMS values of precision. The maxillary arch had better accuracy compared to the mandible. The TRIOS 4 scanner had better accuracy than both the Emerald S scanner and conventional impressions. The Emerald S had better precision than conventional impressions. The scanning spray and liquid-type scanning aids produced the best trueness with the TRIOS 4 scanner, while the liquid-type scanning aid and composite markers produced the best trueness for the Emerald S scanner.

CONCLUSION

The scanned arch and the type of scanner had a significant effect on the accuracy of digital scans of completely edentulous arches. The scanning aid had a significant effect on the trueness of digital scans of completely edentulous arches which varied depending on the scanner used.