Accuracy of a chairside intraoral scanner compared with a laboratory scanner for the completely edentulous maxilla: An in vitro 3-dimensional comparative analysis.

Statement Of Problem: Intraoral scanners are promising options for removable prosthodontics. However, analog aids, including occlusion rims, are still used, as a completely digital workflow is challenging and scientific evidence on the topic is scarce.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness and precision of scans obtained from a reference typodont of a completely edentulous maxilla by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3 Pod; 3Shape A/S) with scans obtained by using a laboratory scanner (DScan 3; EGS S.R.L.) from both Type IV stone casts and polysulfide impressions.

Material And Methods: The polyurethane resin reference typodont was replicated from a clinical cast and was scanned with a metrological machine to obtain a reference scan. Ten digital casts were obtained by applying standardized scanning strategies to the reference typodont with the intraoral scanner. A device was created to make 10 consistent polysulfide impressions, and a scan of each impression was made with the laboratory scanner and then digitally reversed to obtain 10 digital reversed casts. Ten Type IV stone casts were poured and then scanned with the laboratory scanner to obtain 10 digital extraoral scanner casts. The scans in standard tessellation language (STL) format were imported into a dedicated software program, and the trueness and precision were calculated in μm. In addition to descriptive statistics (confidence interval 95%), 1-way ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni test or the Kruskal-Wallis and the Dunn tests were used to analyze differences among groups (α=.05).

Results: The trueness values (95% confidence interval) were digital intraoral scanner cast=48.7 (37.8-59.5), digital reversed cast=249.9 (121.3-378.5), and digital extraoral scanner cast=308.8 (186.6-430.9); significant differences were detected between digital intraoral scanner cast and digital reversed cast (P<.001) and between digital IOS casts and digital extraoral scanner cast (P<.001). The precision values (95% confidence interval) were digital intraoral scanner cast=46.7 (29.7-63.7), digital reversed cast=271.2 (94.6-447.8), and digital extraoral scanner cast=341.4 (175.5-507.3); significant differences were detected between digital intraoral scanner cast and digital reversed cast (P=.003) and between digital intraoral scanner cast and digital extraoral scanner cast (P=.001).

Conclusions: Directly scanning a solid typodont of a completely edentulous maxilla with the intraoral scanner produced better trueness and precision than scanning the polysulfide impressions or the stone casts with a laboratory scanner.