Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners and Two Laboratory Scanners for a Complete Arch: A Comparative In Vitro Study

This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of five different intraoral scanners and two different laboratory scanners for a complete arch. A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM) was obtained using industrial scanners. A CAD test model (CTM) was obtained using five types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios2, Trios3, and i500) and two types of laboratory scanners (3shape E1 and DOF) (N = 20). In addition, the CRM and CTM were superimposed using a 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X; 3D Systems) and 3D analysis was performed. In the 3D analysis, the accuracy was measured by the type of tooth, the anterior and posterior region, and the overall region. As for the statistical analysis of the accuracy, the differences were confirmed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test (alpha = 0.05). Also, the differences between the groups were analyzed by post-hoc tests including Mann-Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction method (alpha = 0.0017). There was a significant difference in the scanning accuracy of the complete arch according to the type of scanner (P < 0.001). The i500 Group showed the lowest accuracy (143 +/- 69.6 mu m), while the 3Shape E1 Group was the most accurate (14.3 +/- 0.3 mu m). Also, the accuracy was lower in the posterior region than in the anterior region in all types of scanners (P < 0.001). Scanning accuracy of the complete arch differed depending on the type of scanner. While three types of intraoral scanners (CS3500, CS3600, Trios3) can be recommended for scanning of a complete arch, the two remaining types of intraoral scanners (Trios2 and i500) cannot be recommended.