Skip to content
Open access

Accuracy comparison of different intraoral scanners in capturing orthodontic bracket positions: an in vitro evaluation

Aug 2026 · The Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine · Vol 17, pp. 779-783 · 0 citations · 13 references

TL;DR

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.

Abstract

Aim This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (IOS) in capturing the three-dimensional positions of orthodontic brackets on dental models. Methods Twenty maxillary dental models bonded with MBT stainless steel brackets were scanned using four IOS systems: Primescan, Trios 4, iTero Element 5D, and Medit i700. A high-accuracy laboratory scanner served as the reference standard. Each model was scanned twice with each IOS, yielding 160 datasets. Scans were aligned to the reference using a two-step superimposition protocol, and bracket slot-center deviations were measured in mesiodistal, occlusogingival, buccolingual, and angular dimensions. Trueness, precision, and clinically acceptable deviation rates were analyzed using ANOVA/Kruskal–Wallis tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Results Primescan showed the highest trueness, with linear deviations of 0.05–0.07 mm and angular deviations of 0.58–0.62°. Trios 4 demonstrated similar accuracy, remaining within ±0.10mm and ± 1°. iTero Element 5D exhibited greater variation (0.10–0.12mm; 1.12–1.25°), while Medit i700 showed the highest deviations (0.11–0.13mm; 1.29–1.41°). Clinically acceptable deviation rates were 92.5% for Primescan, 88.1% for Trios 4, 76.4% for iTero, and 62.7% for Medit. Precision analysis showed the lowest repeat-scan variability for Primescan (0.03 ± 0.01 mm), whereas Medit displayed the highest variability. ICC values exceeded 0.90 for all scanners. Conclusion Scanner accuracy varied significantly, with Primescan and Trios 4 demonstrating superior trueness and precision. iTero and Medit showed reduced accuracy, particularly in angular measurements. Scanner selection is therefore critical for workflows requiring high-fidelity bracket capture.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access 2026

Trueness and Precision of Three Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Digital Impressions Exported in PLY Format: An In Vitro Study

Background: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of digital dental impressions using the Polygon File Format (PLY) across three intraoral scanners. Methods: A maxillary arch resin model with reference points was scanned 10 times using the intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 5, Medit i900, Cameo Elegant 3) and a laborato...

Saud J. Dizayee · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Effect of Preparation Design on the Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners: A Comparative Analysis Across Two IOS Systems.

OBJECTIVE The accuracy of intraoral scanners is commonly described by trueness and precision; however, the extent to which single-tooth crown preparation geometry influences these outcomes across different scanner systems remains unclear. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate trueness and to descriptively assess precis...

Şekibe Hüma Sanioğlu, Fatma Emine Karol, O. Harorlı · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Root Canal Taper and the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Post Space Measurement: An In Vitro Study

Abstract Objective The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of two intraoral scanners (IOSs) for measuring post space length and area deviation in root canal-treated teeth with differing canal tapers, using a caliper as the reference standard. Materials and methods Fifteen endodonticall...

Dusit Nantanapiboon, Porawit Kamnoedboon, Chawalid Pianmee et al. · 0 citations
Aug 2026

Accuracy of 12 Intraoral Scanners and Photogrammetric Systems for Full-Arch Edentulous Maxillae: An In Vitro Study.

The accuracy of full-arch implant impressions is critical for prosthetic passivity and long-term clinical success. This study compared the trueness and repeatability of twelve digital impression systems (DIS), including nine intraoral scanners (IOS) and three stereophotogrammetric (SPG) systems, for a fully edentulous...

Patrice Margossian, Romain Lan, Sebastien Melloul et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

In Vivo Comparison of the Trueness of Conventional and Digital Interocclusal Registration

The objective was to evaluate the trueness of interocclusal registration obtained with three intraoral scanning systems versus a conventional impression and bite registration in fully dentate patients. Twenty adults with complete dentitions and Angle Class I occlusion were enrolled. Complete-arch scans were obtained wi...

Felix Förtsch, J. Ries, Tom Kasperlik et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Effect of Remaining Teeth on Complete Arch Implant Scanning: An In Vitro Comparison of Interabutment Deviations in Two Digital Workflows

This in vitro study evaluated whether the presence of four remaining teeth affected the reproduction of interabutment spatial relationships by two intraoral scanning systems. A single three-dimensionally printed maxillary master model containing four implant analogues connected to Mini Conical Abutments was evaluated s...

Lucas David Galvani, Kathleen Lemos Soares, Jailson Junior Rodrigues Oliveira et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.