98%
921
2 minutes
20
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the trueness of four commercially available digital scanners.
Methodology: A prepared lower first molar in a typhodont model, featuring dimple markers at line angles, served as the reference. Caliper measurements of dimple distances provided the reference dataset. Four desktop scanners each performed 10 scans of the model. EXOCAD software was used to process the digital scans, generating study datasets. Scanner datasets were then compared to the caliper reference data to evaluate trueness.
Results: Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined significant differences ( < 0.05) in buccolingual and mesiodistal trueness between four scanners. Descriptive statistics revealed the UP3D scanner was most accurate in the buccolingual direction, while both MEDIT and UP3D were most accurate mesiodistally.
Conclusions: The Dentium rainbow scanner which was the only white light scanner in this study, showed less trueness than other types of scanners. The UP3D scanner which works on structured light principle had higher trueness.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12156496 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_615_25 | DOI Listing |
J Pharm Bioallied Sci
May 2025
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Malla Reddy Dental College for Women, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the trueness of four commercially available digital scanners.
Methodology: A prepared lower first molar in a typhodont model, featuring dimple markers at line angles, served as the reference. Caliper measurements of dimple distances provided the reference dataset.
Dent J (Basel)
June 2021
School of Dentistry, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
(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.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF