Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 28, 2026
Precision of In Vivo Quantitative Tooth Wear Measurement Using Intra-Oral Scans
Published on: July 12, 2022
The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study
Sebastian B M Patzelt1, Christos Lamprinos2, Susanne Stampf3
1Dr. Patzelt is a visiting research professor and the course director, Prosthetic Lecture Series and Seminar, Implant Periodontal Prosthodontics Program, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore. He also is an assistant professor and a scientific associate, Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Address correspondence to Dr. Patzelt at Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, 650 W. Baltimore St., Baltimore, Md. 21201, e-mail spatzelt@umaryland.edu.
Background:
Although intraoral scanners are known to have good accuracy in computer-aided impression making (CAIM), their effect on time efficiency is not. Little is known about the time required to make a digital impression. The purpose of the authors' in vitro investigation was to evaluate the time efficiency of intraoral scanners.
Methods:
The authors used three different intraoral scanners to digitize a single abutment (scenario 1), a short-span fixed dental prosthesis (scenario 2) and a full-arch prosthesis preparation (scenario 3). They measured the procedure durations for the several scenarios and compiled and contrasted the procedure durations for three conventional impression materials.
Results:
The mean total procedure durations for making digital impressions of scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were as much as 5 minutes 57 seconds, 6 minutes 57 seconds, and 20 minutes 55 seconds, respectively. Results showed statistically significant differences between all scanners (P < .05), except Lava (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.) and iTero with foot pedal (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif.) for scenario 1, CEREC (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and CEREC with foot pedal for scenario 2, and iTero and iTero with foot pedal for scenarios 2 and 3. The compiled procedure durations for making conventional impressions in scenarios 1 and 2 ranged between 18 minutes 15 seconds and 27 minutes 25 seconds; for scenario 3, they ranged between 21 minutes 25 seconds and 30 minutes 25 seconds.
Conclusions:
The authors found that CAIM was significantly faster for all tested scenarios. This suggests that CAIM might be beneficial in establishing a more time-efficient work flow.
Practical Implications:
On the basis of the results of this in vitro study, the authors found CAIM to be superior regarding time efficiency in comparison with conventional approaches and might accelerate the work flow of making impressions.
