Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience
Aim: The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the
effects of operator experience
Methodology: The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05).
Results: After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 mm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 mm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 mm versus 54 ±3.1 mm, P<.001), but higherdeviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 mm versus 57 ±3.6 mm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 mm), i500 (57 ±3.6 mm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 mm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 mm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 mm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 mm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 mm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 mm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 mm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 mm, P=.141) for the experienced operators.
Conclusion: The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.