Int J Prosthodont. 2022 January/February;35(1):82–93. doi: 10.11607/ijp.7297. Epub 2021 Mar 18.
To compare the accuracy of three commercially available intraoral scanners when imaging various dental material substrates.
A maxillary dentate typodont model with 11 different dental material substrates was prepared and scanned using three intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, 3Shape; CS 3600, Carestream; and Emerald S, Planmeca). The model was further scanned with a laboratory scanner (7series, Dental Wings) for reference. Files were exported in standard tessellation language format and inserted into a metrology 3D mesh software (CloudCompare).
In terms of influence of different substrates on IOS trueness, a significant effect on the performance of TRIOS 3 and Emerald S was revealed. Concerning the accuracy of different intraoral scanners when scanning more translucent and reflective materials, pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences among scanners. In terms of complete-arch trueness and precision, pairwise comparisons revealed that TRIOS 3 had significantly higher trueness and precision compared to CS3600 and Emerald S. The complete-arch trueness and precision of CS3600 and Emerald S did not differ significantly.
Dental material substrates influenced the accuracy of all three tested scanners. The full metal crown exhibited significantly lower trueness compared to other substrates across all three scanners. For the high-translucency substrate group, TRIOS 3 exhibited significantly higher trueness compared to CS 3600. Polished and unpolished class II amalgam restorations of similar dimensions did not exhibit significant differences in trueness regardless of intraoral scanner. In terms of complete-arch accuracy, TRIOS 3 had significantly higher trueness and precision compared to CS 3600 and Emerald S. All three scanners exhibited complete-arch average accuracy below 100 μm.
比较三种市售口内扫描仪在成像不同牙科材料基底时的准确性。
制备了一个带有 11 种不同牙科材料基底的上颌有牙模型，并使用三种口内扫描仪（TRIOS 3、3Shape；CS 3600、Carestream；和 Emerald S、Planmeca）进行扫描。该模型还使用实验室扫描仪（7 系列、Dental Wings）进行了参考扫描。文件以标准曲面语言格式导出并插入计量 3D 网格软件（CloudCompare）中。
就不同基底对 IOS 准确性的影响而言，TRIOS 3 和 Emerald S 的性能受到显著影响。关于扫描更半透明和反射性材料时不同口内扫描仪的准确性，两两比较显示扫描仪之间存在显著差异。在全牙弓准确性和精度方面，两两比较显示 TRIOS 3 的准确性和精度明显高于 CS3600 和 Emerald S。CS3600 和 Emerald S 的全牙弓准确性和精度没有显著差异。
牙科材料基底影响了所有三种测试扫描仪的准确性。全金属冠与所有三种扫描仪的其他基底相比，准确性明显较低。对于高半透明度基底组，TRIOS 3 的准确性明显高于 CS 3600。具有相似尺寸的抛光和未抛光 II 类银汞合金修复体，无论使用哪种口内扫描仪，准确性都没有显著差异。在全牙弓准确性方面，TRIOS 3 的准确性和精度明显高于 CS 3600 和 Emerald S。所有三种扫描仪的全牙弓平均准确性均低于 100μm。
