Jul 2026· E -journal of dentistry· pp.
106915
· 1 citation· 50 references
Medicine
Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the effect of restoration span on scanner-related restoration fit obtained with six intraoral scanners and one dental laboratory scanner.
Methods
A maxillary resin model with eight abutments was scanned with an ATOSQ reference scanner and subsequently with the Aoralscan Elite, Mediti900, Primescan2, R2i3, RunyesV6, and TRIOS6 intraoral scanners, and the AutoScan-DSEXPro(H) laboratory scanner (n=12 per test scanner). Complete-arch, four-unit bridge, and single-unit restorations were digitally designed. The designed restoration meshes were superimposed on the reference scan using a virtual-fit approach. Marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were calculated for each scanner in the metrology software. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed models.
Results
Mean MG ranged from 15-30 µm for single crowns, 16-44 µm for bridges, and 37-91 µm for complete-arch restorations. MG was significantly higher for bridges than for single crowns for all scanners except AutoScan-DSEXPro(H) and Aoralscan Elite. Complete-arch restorations showed significantly higher MG and AMD than bridges for all scanners, although mean MG remained below the clinically derived, model-based threshold of 100 µm. However, several R2i3 and TRIOS6 scans exceeded this MG threshold. Mean AMD exceeded the threshold for RunyesV6, R2i3, and TRIOS6 in complete-arch restorations.
Conclusions
Restoration span is a critical determinant of scanning accuracy, particularly when moving from four-unit bridges to complete-arch restorations, even for the laboratory scanner. The virtual-fit method enables robust, clinically interpretable comparison of scanner accuracy across restoration types.
CLINICAL
Significance
Intraoral scanner selection should consider the intended restoration span. While all evaluated scanners performed well for short-span restorations, only some maintained high accuracy for complete-arch tooth-borne restorations. Because these findings are based on an in vitro study, scanners with lower complete-arch accuracy should be used with caution in clinical practice.
Scanner accuracy varied significantly, with Primescan and Trios 4 demonstrating superior trueness and precision and iTero and Medit showed reduced accuracy, particularly in angular measurements.
Ali Furkan Karakoyunlu, Ozum Dasdemir Ozkan· The Annals of Clinical and A...· 0 citations
Cavity depth and tooth structure thickness significantly influenced the accuracy of intraoral scanners in endocrown restorations and significantly influenced the accuracy of intraoral scanners in endocrown restorations.
Yunus Emre Ozden, Idil Ozden, Zeynep Ozkurt Kayahan et al.· American Journal of Dentistr...· 0 citations
Full-arch intraoral scanning of edentulous models demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy, within the limitations of this in vitro study, and should be interpreted cautiously when extrapolating to clinical intraoral conditions.
Emel Arslan, H. Yemenoğlu· Journal of Applied Dentistry...· 0 citations
The type of scan body did not significantly affect the accuracy of digital impressions for bone-level implants and the mean and standard deviation of Root Mean Square Eror (RMSE) were calculated.
A. Fathi, Ehsan Ghasemi, Seyyed Parsa Tabatabaei et al.· Journal of Oral Implantology· 0 citations
Evaluating how different ISB designs affect the trueness and precision of digital impressions in a completely edentulous maxillary arch with multiple implants found significant differences were found among ISBs in both trueness and precision.
Fernando Sanclemente-Reina, Carlos Serrano-Granger, Andrea Santamaría-Laorden et al.· International Dental Journal· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.