Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 23, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Full arch accuracy of intraoral scanners with different acquisition technologies: An in vitro study
1German Society for Digital Oral Impression (DGDOA), Germany.
Objectives:
To evaluate the full arch trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS) using different acquisition technologies.
Methods:
Four 8 mm in diameter metal spheres were embedded into a dentate type IV dental stone cast model. Six distances among the centers of the spheres were measured with a coordinate measuring machine and used as references. The model was digitized thirty times with two confocal scanners (Trios 5 and CS3800), two structured light scanners (i700 and AS260) and one multi-direct capture (MDC) scanner (Lumina) by three trained operators (n = 90). Six distances in the scan files were measured and calculated for relative errors of trueness, precision and plane deviation (the perpendicular distance from each sphere's center to a reference plane representing a vertical error). Differences among scanners in terms of trueness and precision were analyzed with multivariable analysis, mixed-effect model and Tukey's multiple comparisons (α=0.05; p < 0.05 indicating significance).
Results:
Scanner type influenced full-arch accuracy, with the iTero Lumina exhibiting the lowest linear relative errors for trueness (0.04 % vs. 0.071 % for i700, 0.074 % for AS260, 0.089 % for CS3800, and 0.14 % for TRIOS5; p < 0.0001) and precision (0.032 % vs. 0.073 % for CS3800, 0.074 % for i700, 0.077 % for AS260, and 0.1 % for TRIOS5; p < 0.01). Plane deviation, the perpendicular distance from each sphere's center to a reference plane, ranged from 19 µm (Lumina) to 33-120 µm (others), with differences not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusion:
This in vitro study indicated that intraoral scanner acquisition technology influences full-arch digital impression accuracy, with MDC technology demonstrating lower linear relative errors in trueness and precision compared to confocal and structured-light technologies. Further clinical research is needed to validate these findings.
Clinical Significance:
As the first study to assess full-arch accuracy of an IOS with MDC technology, this study indicates that MDC may offer an accurate and reliable method for full-arch impressions.
