Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Scanners: Are They the Better Option?

  • Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oral Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

Recent Findings

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.

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of Particular Interest, Published Recently, Have Been Highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Hajeer MY, Millett DT, Ayoub AF, Siebert JP. Applications of 3D imaging in orthodontics: part I. J Orthod. 2004;31:62–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010;38:553–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(Suppl):7S–13S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Luthardt R, Weber A, Rudolph H, Schone C, Quaas S, Walter M. Design and production of dental prosthetic restorations: basic research on dental CAD/CAM technology. Int J Comput Dent. 2002;5:165–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. • Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:313–21. A recent similar review about intra-oral scanners.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Galhano GA, Pellizzer EP, Mazaro JV. Optical impression systems for CAD-CAM restorations. J Craniofac Surg. 2012;23:e575–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(Suppl 1):e54–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Pak HS, Han JS, Lee JB, Kim SH, Yang JH. Influence of porcelain veneering on the marginal fit of Digident and Lava CAD/CAM zirconia ceramic crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2010;2:33–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:799–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 

  14. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971;131:107–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brosky ME, Major RJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Evaluation of dental arch reproduction using three-dimensional optical digitization. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90:434–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Larson TD, Nielsen MA, Brackett WW. The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87:625–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. DeLong R, Heinzen M, Hodges JS, Ko CC, Douglas WH. Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res. 2003;82:438–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015;46:9–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14:11–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17:1759–64.

    Article  PubMed  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;

  22. Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradies G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:2403–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pradies G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martinez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015;43:201–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:2027–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ates SM, Yesil DZ. Influence of tooth preparation design on fitting accuracy of CAD-CAM based restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016;28:238–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Witkowski S, Komine F, Gerds T. Marginal accuracy of titanium copings fabricated by casting and CAD/CAM techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96:47–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Park JY, Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Bae SY, Kim JH, Kim WC. In vitro assessment of the marginal and internal fits of interim implant restorations fabricated with different methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:536–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:283–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:362–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial J Prosthodont. 2016;25:282–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abdel-Azim T, Zandinejad A, Elathamna E, Lin W, Morton D. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:1281–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:715–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:465–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1687–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

  37. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2013;144:471–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of single-abutment digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:253–9.

    Article  PubMed  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.

  40. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee SJ, Macarthur RX, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110:420–3.

    Article  PubMed  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;

  43. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:221–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany

    Kamal Ebeid

  2. Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Kamal Ebeid & Tarek Salah

  3. Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Future University, New Cairo, Egypt

    Shereen Nossair

Authors
  1. Kamal Ebeid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tarek Salah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shereen Nossair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamal Ebeid.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Dental Restorative Materials

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ebeid, K., Salah, T. & Nossair, S. Accuracy and Reliability of Intraoral Scanners: Are They the Better Option?. Curr Oral Health Rep 4, 209–214 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-017-0145-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-017-0145-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation