Digital post scan with three intraoral scanning systems - An in vitro study
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 15, 2025
Digital Hybrid Model Preparation for Virtual Planning of Reconstructive Dentoalveolar Surgical Procedures
Published on: August 5, 2021
Kay-Arne Walther1, Sarah Marie Reich1, Bernd Wöstmann1
1Justus Liebig University, Dental Clinic - Department of Prosthodontics, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Objectives:
The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of digital post scan (DPS) with three different intraoral scanners (IOS) and to evaluate the light reaching the apical part of the preparation, considering the influence of the type of tooth and adjacent teeth.
Methods:
50 clinical cases treated with post and core (PC) were used for 3D printing of the dataset of DPS with a hole at the apical part of the preparation by virtual construction and nesting. The models covered the sensor of a luxmeter leaving only the hole for measuring the amount of light during DPS (lux-value) with Primescan (PRI), Trios 5 (TRI) and Medit i700 (MED). Feasibility of DPS was evaluated by the percentage of surface deviating <50 µm from PRI (TRI/PRI, MED/PRI) in an analysis software. Moreover, a possible influence of the type of tooth that was treated with PC on DPS was evaluated. Statistical analysis was conducted using ANOVA with a significance level of p < 0.05.
Results:
Highly significant differences (p < 0.001) were found for the light reaching the apical part of the preparation (lux-value) between PRI, TRI and MED (in decreasing order). Except from PRI, DPS was only feasible for TRI (100 % of surface deviation <50 µm) in three cases without adjacent teeth, showing highly significant differences between TRI/PRI and MED/PRI (p < 0.001). The type of tooth did not have a significant influence (p > 0.05).
Conclusions:
The amount of emitted light with PRI linked to the larger capturing window in comparison to TRI and MED might increase the feasibility of DPS with PRI.
Clinical Significance:
PRI can be recommended for DPS, whereas TRI and MED showed inferior results leading to unpredictable accuracy of fit of PC. The depth of focus given by the manufacturer of the IOS is not an indicator for the feasibility of DPS.
