Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 2, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Material-dependent trueness of intraoral scanners: A comparative analysis of three scanning technologies for
Meghna Budati1, Subhabrata Maiti1, Jessy Paulraj2
1Department of Prosthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Aim:
The aim of this was to assess and compare the accuracy of three intraoral scanners (IOS) under clinical conditions-active triangulation (Medit i700), parallel confocal (3Shape TRIOS), and optical triangulation (Primescan) by comparing their root mean square (RMS) deviation and maximum deviations to a high-accuracy reference scan using the 3Shape E4 extraoral scanner across six different crown material substrates.
Settings And Design:
The study was conducted in an in vitro setting, comparing different IOS technologies.
Materials And Methods:
An in vitro study was performed using a three-dimensional (3D)-printed maxillary model with crowns fabricated from lithium disilicate ceramic (Emax), layered zirconia, monolithic zirconia, cobalt-chromium alloy, Polyetheretherketone (Bio-HPP), and Polyetherketoneketone (Pekkton). Each IOS performed 24 scans of the crowns following device-specific protocols. Accuracy was assessed by superimposing scans with the reference using Geomagic Control X software (Version 2020.0.1, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) to determine RMS and maximum deviations.
Statistical Analysis Used:
Scanning accuracy among devices and materials was evaluated using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Results:
Optical triangulation demonstrated the highest trueness for most materials, with the lowest RMS deviations for Emax (0.031 ± 0.003 mm), Bio-HPP (0.034 ± 0.002 mm), and Pekkton (0.035 ± 0.002 mm). Active triangulation performed best for the reflective cobalt-chromium alloy (0.183 ± 0.256 mm). There were significant differences seen in the accuracy of scanners and materials (P < 0.05).
Conclusion:
IOS trueness is influenced by substrate material and scanner technology. Optical triangulation excelled with translucent and low-reflective materials, whereas active triangulation showed superior performance with the reflective substrates. Material-specific scanning protocols are critical for achieving optimal clinical outcomes.
