Department of Prosthodontics, Semmelweis University, Szentkiralyi Street 47, 1088, Budapest, Hungary.
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Apr 26;22(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4.
The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters.
In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs.
The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study.
The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions. Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019).
口内扫描仪（IOS）的发展迅速，不同制造商生产的新型 IOS 具有不同的特性。目前，文献中尚无基于定义明确的方面的统一评级系统可用于比较这些设备。本验证研究旨在基于客观和综合参数比较不同的 IOS。
本研究共检测了 12 种不同的 IOS。按照交货顺序，本研究中检测的 IOS 包括 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®、Planmeca Emerald®、Straumann DWIO®、GC Aadva®、iTero Element 2®、CEREC Primescan®、Medit i500®、3Shape Trios 4 Move®、Carestream CS3600®、3Shape Trios 4 Pod®、Carestream CS3700®和 Planmeca Emerald S®。IOS 通过以下四种方式进行评估：（a）总结图表，（b）比较评估，（c）基于体外测量的数据和（d）准确性测量。创建了一个评分系统，以便对 IOS 进行客观评分。
IOS 之间的差异体现在得分上（总结图表[最高分 10 分] + IOS 重量[最高分 2.5 分] + IOS 周长[最高分 2.5 分] + 体外扫描时间[最高分 2.5 分] + 数据捕获暂停[最高分 2.5 分] + 准确性[最高分 10 分]= 总结[最高分 30 分]）。Trios 4 Pod 获得了最高的累积分数（23.37 分），此外，它在总结图表和扫描速度方面获得了最高的分数。在扫描连续性方面，表现最好的 IOS 是得分相同的 Trios 3 和 4 Pod、Trios 4 Move、iTero Element 2、CS3600 和 CS3700。最准确的 IOS 是 CEREC Primescan，但它在比较评估中得分最低（最重的 IOS）。GC Aadva 得分为 30 分中的 5.73 分，是本研究中最差的结果。
评分系统反映了基于评估的客观参数的 IOS 设备之间的差异，可用于帮助临床医生选择合适的 IOS 设备。新一代 IOS 具有更多特殊性能，其准确性高于旧版本。
本研究获得塞梅尔维斯大学伦理委员会的许可（SE RKEB 编号：108/2019）。
