Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 6, 2025
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Evaluating the accuracy of three intraoral scanners using models containing different numbers of crown-prepared
Ting Zhang1, Ting Wei2, Yawen Zhao3
1Department of Prosthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Shandong Key Laboratory of Oral Tissue Regeneration, Shandong Engineering Laboratory for Dental Materials and Oral Tissue Regeneration, Jinan, China.
Background/Purpose:
The scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners' data collection plays a key role in the success of the final treatment. However, few studies start from scanning technology itself to directly evaluate it. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy of three intraoral scanners, to provide a reference for relevant research and clinical applications.
Materials And Methods:
Six types of resin models containing different numbers of crown-prepared abutments were three-dimensionally printed, and a model scanner, as well as three intraoral scanners, were used to digitally scan the six models. The obtained data were uploaded to three-dimensional reverse software for registration and comparison, and the accuracy of the models were analyzed.
Results:
When scanning the six groups of models, the Omnicam outperformed both the TRIOS and iTero in terms of accuracy in all groups except the second molar group. The TRIOS and iTero scanners also exhibited decreased degrees of accuracy when scanning the long dental arch. The accuracy decreased as the scanning scope increased; however, the Omnicam scanner exhibited a relatively high degree of accuracy when scanning the three-unit fixed bridge and anterior areas. All scanners exhibited the lowest degree of accuracy when scanning the full-arch model. Certain deviations were observed, and the scanning areas at the incisal edges of the anterior teeth and end of the dental arch exhibited relatively large deviations.
Conclusion:
With the model scanner data as reference, the scanning accuracy of the three scanners exhibited differences and certain deviations, which were within clinical tolerance.
