Nulty Adam B
School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Dent J (Basel). 2021 Jun 23;9(7):75. doi: 10.3390/dj9070075.
(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the full arch scan accuracy (precision and trueness) of nine digital intra-oral scanners and four lab scanners. Previous studies have compared the accuracy of some intra-oral scanners, but as this is a field of quickly developing technologies, a more up-to-date study was needed to assess the capabilities of currently available models. (2) Methods: The present in vitro study compared nine different intra-oral scanners (Omnicam 4.6; Omnicam 5.1; Primescan; CS 3600; Trios 3; Trios 4; Runyes; i500; and DL206) as well as four lab light scanners (Einscan SE; 300e; E2; and Ineos X5) to investigate the accuracy of each scanner by examining the overall trueness and precision. Ten aligned and cut scans from each of the intra-oral and lab scanners in the in vitro study were brought into CloudCompare. A comparison was made with the master STL using the CloudCompare 3D analysis best-fit algorithm. The results were recorded along with individual standard deviation and a colorimetric map of the deviation across the surface of the STL mesh; a comparison was made to the master STL, quantified at specific points. (3) Results: In the present study, the Primescan had the best overall trueness (17.3 ± 4.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the Trios 4 (20.8 ± 6.2), i500 (25.2 ± 7.3), CS3600 (26.9 ± 15.9), Trios 3 (27.7 ± 6.8), Runyes (47.2 ± 5.4), Omnicam 5.1 (55.1 ± 9.5), Omnicam 4.6 (57.5 ± 3.2), and Launca DL206 (58.5 ± 22.0). Regarding the lab light scanners, the Ineos X5 had the best overall trueness with (0.0 ± 1.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the 3Shape E2 (3.6 ± 2.2), Up3D 300E (12.8 ± 2.7), and Einscan SE (14.9 ± 9.5). (4) Conclusions: This study confirms that all current generations of intra-oral digital scanners can capture a reliable, reproducible full arch scan in dentate patients. Out of the intra-oral scanners tested, no scanner produced results significantly similar in trueness to the Ineos X5. However, the Primescan was the only one to be statistically of a similar level of trueness to the 3Shape E2 lab scanner. All scanners in the study had mean trueness of under 60-micron deviation. While this study can compare the scanning accuracy of this sample in a dentate arch, the scanning of a fully edentulous arch is more challenging. The accuracy of these scanners in edentulous cases should be examined in further studies.
(1) 背景：本研究旨在评估九款数字口内扫描仪和四款实验室扫描仪的全牙弓扫描准确性（精度和真实性）。以往研究比较了部分口内扫描仪的准确性，但鉴于这是一个技术快速发展的领域，需要开展一项更新的研究来评估现有型号的性能。(2) 方法：本体外研究比较了九款不同的口内扫描仪（Omnicam 4.6、Omnicam 5.1、Primescan、CS 3600、Trios 3、Trios 4、Runyes、i500和DL206）以及四款实验室光学扫描仪（Einscan SE、300e、E2和Ineos X5），通过检测整体真实性和精度来研究各扫描仪的准确性。体外研究中，从每款口内和实验室扫描仪获取的十次对齐并裁剪后的扫描数据被导入CloudCompare。使用CloudCompare 3D分析最佳拟合算法与主STL进行比较。记录结果以及个体标准差和STL网格表面偏差的比色图；与主STL进行比较，并在特定点进行量化。(3) 结果：在本研究中，Primescan的整体真实性最佳（17.3 ± 4.9），其次（按偏差递增顺序）是Trios 4（20.8 ± 6.2）、i500（25.2 ± 7.3）、CS3600（26.9 ± 15.9）、Trios 3（27.7 ± 6.8）、Runyes（47.2 ± 5.4）、Omnicam 5.1（55.1 ± 9.5）、Omnicam 4.6（57.5 ± 3.2）和Launca DL206（58.5 ± 22.0）。对于实验室光学扫描仪，Ineos X5的整体真实性最佳（0.0 ± 1.9），其次（按偏差递增顺序）是3Shape E2（3.6 ± 2.2）、Up3D 300E（12.8 ± 2.7）和Einscan SE（14.9 ± 9.5）。(4) 结论：本研究证实，当前所有一代的口内数字扫描仪都能在有牙患者中获取可靠、可重复的全牙弓扫描。在所测试的口内扫描仪中，没有一款扫描仪的真实性结果与Ineos X5显著相似。然而，Primescan是唯一在统计学上与3Shape E2实验室扫描仪真实性水平相似的扫描仪。研究中的所有扫描仪平均真实性偏差均低于60微米。虽然本研究可以比较该样本在有牙弓中的扫描准确性，但对无牙全弓的扫描更具挑战性。这些扫描仪在无牙病例中的准确性应在进一步研究中进行检测。
