Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 14, 2025
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Comparison of dimensional accuracy of digital models by intraoral scanning method in comparison with molding with
Mehrdad Kazemian1, Mohamad Kheirati1
1Department of Operative Dentistry, Dental School, Isf. C., Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.
Background:
Intraoral scanners (IOS) have been developed to address the drawbacks of traditional impression systems, such as improving patient comfort and expediting the restoration process. The objective of this study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of IOSs with traditional impression systems.
Materials And Methods:
In this experimental study, a maxillary reference model was utilized for the study. The mesiodistal, occlusogingival, and buccolingual distances between points were measured on the model using a digital caliper and recorded as the control group. The reference model was then scanned once using an IOS device (CEREC AC) to generate a digital model. Reference points were measured and recorded using EXOCAD V.2019 software. Sixteen alginate impressions were cast in separate trays from the reference model, and dental stone IV was poured into them. Reference points were also measured on the casts using a caliper. Finally, the measurements of IOS models, alginate templates, and reference models were compared in terms of size and dimensional differences. Data analysis was performed using the analysis of variance with independent t-tests, with a significance level of <0.05. The study utilized a maxillary reference model.
Results:
The mean differences in mesiodistal dimensions of only the right second premolars (P = 0.017), buccolingual dimensions of central incisors (P = 0.037), lateral incisors (P = 0.050), and right first molar (P = 0.028) showed significant differences between IOS and alginate methods compared to the reference model. The dimensions reported in the IOS method were higher (0.71-1.26 mm) than those in the alginate method compared to the reference model.
Conclusion:
Based on the results of this study and acknowledging its limitations, it can be concluded that the IOS method yielded a greater number of measurements than the reference model when evaluated on a limited number of teeth within the complete maxillary arch. However, the measurements obtained using the alginate method were more closely aligned with those of the reference model. The minimal differences observed between digital impressions and traditional measurement techniques, the IOS method may be regarded as a viable alternative to conventional methods, owing to its numerous advantages.
