Intraoral scanning of endocrown preparation on natural teeth in an in vitro setting: a segmented trueness analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Aim:
The purpose of the present study was to compare five intraoral scanning technologies on the digitization of the pulpal floor, internal and external axial walls, and margins of natural teeth prepared for endocrown restoration.
Materials And Methods:
One mandibular molar was prepared freehand for endocrown restoration with a cavity depth of 5 mm. The preparation was scanned five times (n = 5) using Primescan, Medit i600, TRIOS 3, DEXIS IS 3700, and Eagle IOS. A reference digital cast was obtained using a laboratory scanner. Quantitative analysis of discrepancies (root mean square [RMS]) was performed using Geomagic Control X across segmented areas: pulpal floor, internal and external axial walls, and margin of the preparation. RMS values were compared using one-way ANOVA.
Result:
Primescan showed the lowest RMS values at the pulpal floor (13.38 ± 2.23 µm; P 0.001). The devices Medit i600, DEXIS IS 3700, and TRIOS 3 had similar performance (P > 0.05). At the internal axial wall, Primescan exhibited the lowest value (10.80 ± 0.78 µm), with no statistically significant difference compared to TRIOS 3 (P > 0.05). At the external axial wall, Primescan recorded the lowest value (8.52 ± 0.30 µm), with no statistically significant difference compared to TRIOS 3 (P > 0.05). At the margins, Primescan had the lowest value (9.40 ± 0.62 µm), with no statistically significant difference compared to TRIOS 3 (P > 0.05). Eagle IOS had the highest values in all regions.
Conclusion:
Different IOS technologies perform differently across preparation regions. The pulpal floor, internal axial wall, and margin are the most affected. However, all values remained below clinically acceptable thresholds.
