Accuracy of an intraoral scanner based on sleeve type, decontamination, and calibration

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of an intraoral scanner based on camera sleeve type, decontamination protocol, and calibration status. Five extracted human teeth were set into a gypsum stone model and prepared for various indirect restorations. An optical impression was completed with a benchtop scanner to serve as a reference standard. A total of 160 optical impressions were completed using a sterilizable sleeve, an autoclavable sleeve with a single-use plastic window, or a single-use disposable plastic sleeve attached to a calibrated or an uncalibrated intraoral scanner. For the sterilizable sleeves, 2 decontamination protocols were used--high-level disinfection (HLD) or dry heat sterilization (DHS)--and scans were performed at baseline and after 25 and 50 cycles for each protocol. For the autoclavable (AS) and disposable single-use (SU) sleeves, scans were performed at baseline only. Thus, there were 10 optical impressions per test condition: sleeve type (HLD, DHS, AS, or SU) × decontamination status (baseline, 25 cycles [HLD or DHS], or 50 cycles [HLD or DHS]) × calibration status (calibrated or uncalibrated scanner). The individual optical impressions were compared to the reference standard impression by using 3-dimensional best-fit superimposition with the prepared tooth surfaces as reference points, and 3-dimensional linear differences were calculated for each superimposition. The median positive and absolute value median negative distance measurements were averaged for each impression to generate an average median discrepancy from baseline. The data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05). No statistically significant differences in the median linear distance were found, regardless of sleeve type, decontamination protocol, or calibration status (P > 0.05). All groups demonstrated statistically similar linear disparities, ranging from 11.78 to 14.00 μm. The most precise sleeves were the single-use plastic sleeves, although their results were not significantly different from those of the multiuse sleeve. The results indicated that any of the currently available camera sleeves can provide similar accuracy in a clinical setting and that single-use disposable sleeves are a viable alternative to the currently accepted multiuse sleeves.