Evaluation and Comparison of Interocclusal Registration Accuracy Using Digital Intraoral Scanners and Conventional...

This study aimed to assess and compare the precision of interocclusal registration using digital intraoral scanners and conventional materials. Specifically, it evaluated the accuracy of two commercially available intraoral scanners, examined the precision of two conventional interocclusal registration materials, and compared their outcomes to determine their relative effectiveness in clinical practice.

This in vivo study was conducted in the Department of Prosthodontics on 12 patients with Angle's Class I occlusion, who were divided into four groups based on the technique used for interocclusal registration. Group A used the 3Shape Trios 3 intraoral scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), Group B used the Medit i500 intraoral scanner (Medit, Seoul, South Korea), Group C used Jet Bite polyvinyl siloxane bite‑registration material (Coltene Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland; Batch no. 5171123100), and Group D used Aluwax bite‑registration wax (Maarc, Mumbai, India; Batch no. 2202/01/062022). Conventional impressions were made using GC Flexceed polyvinyl siloxane (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Batch no. 2305221) in perforated dentulous stock trays (Jabbar Company, India). The casts were fabricated using Type IV gypsum (Zooenta, Neelkanth HealthCare Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur, India) and scanned using a Dentium Rainbow laboratory scanner (Dentium, Seoul, South Korea). Digital and conventional datasets were superimposed using a best‑fit alignment algorithm in three‑dimensional (3D) evaluation software to assess discrepancies. Statistical analyses were performed using repeated‑measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni test (p < 0.05).

Significant differences were observed among the four methods (p = 0.001). The 3Shape Trios 3 scanner showed the lowest discrepancy, followed by the Medit i500 and polyvinyl siloxane. Bite‑registration wax demonstrated the greatest discrepancy. Post hoc analysis confirmed significant differences between wax and the other methods, with no notable differences among the digital scanners and polyvinyl siloxane.

Digital intraoral scanners offer superior precision in interocclusal registration compared to bite‑registration wax, with an accuracy comparable to that of polyvinyl siloxane. These findings support the adoption of digital scanners in clinical practice to enhance restorative outcomes, although polyvinyl siloxane remains a reliable alternative.