Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 13, 2026
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
A comparison of a handheld minicomputer and an external graphics processing unit in performing 3D intraoral scans
Taseef Hasan Farook1, James Dudley2
1PhD Candidate, Adelaide Dental School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Statement Of Problem:
Whether the use of an external graphics processing unit (eGPU) and a handheld computer prolongs the operation time for 3-dimensional (3D) intraoral scanning or produces clinically unacceptable scans is unclear.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the 3D intraoral scan accuracy and scan time of a small portable device and an eGPU with desktop-grade workstations.
Material And Methods:
A handheld computer, a laptop, a desktop workstation, and an external graphics card were used to scan a 3D printed set of maxillary and mandibular casts 10 consecutive times using an intraoral scanner. The casts were provided by the manufacturers of the scanner, and the scanning process was conducted by a single operator following best-practice methods. The time required to scan and process the 3D models was analyzed via 1-way ANOVA. Dimensional similarity was assessed using the Hausdorff distance (HD) across the resultant 80 independent bimaxillary 3D scans. A dental desktop 3D scanner was used to scan the casts which served as the control reference. HD values were analyzed via multifactorial ANOVA (α=.05).
Results:
In the real-time rendering of 3D intraoral scans, the laptop without an eGPU took significantly longer (146.41 ±10.66 seconds) (F=30.58, P<.001) compared with when connected to an eGPU (117.66 ±6.95 seconds) and handheld computer (114.84 ±7.20 seconds). Postprocessing times were more favorable on the desktop workstation (16.61 ±4.18 seconds) compared with the laptop with (27.85 ±8.89 seconds) and without an eGPU (32.37 ±7.16 seconds) connected, with the handheld computer and eGPU combination (14.66 ±7.37 seconds) producing the best results (F=14.60, P<.001). Dimensional similarity assessments showed high consistency (F=0.92, P=.44), with no discrepancies noted on the prepared tooth surfaces. The handheld minicomputer with an eGPU produced the best results across all 4 groups.
Conclusions:
The handheld computer with an eGPU offered 3D intraoral scans comparable with output from a traditional workstation while preserving the details on the tooth preparations but at significantly faster scanning and processing rates.
