Optimization of Scanning Distance for Three Intraoral Scanners from Different Manufacturers: An In Vitro Accuracy Analysis
Authors:
- Perla HokayemPHPerla Hokayem
- Rim BourgiRim Bourgi
- Carlos Enrique Cuevas-SuárezCarlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez
- Miguel Ángel Fernández-BarreraMFMiguel Ángel Fernández-Barrera
- Juan Eliezer Zamarripa-CalderónJZJuan Eliezer Zamarripa-Calderón
- Hani TohmeHTHani Tohme
- Adam SalehASAdam Saleh
- Nicolas NassarNicolas Nassar
- Monika Lukomska-SzymanskaMonika Lukomska-Szymanska
- Louis HardanLouis Hardan
Open Access
- 23 July 2025
- journal article
- research article
- Published by MDPI AG in Prosthesis
- Vol. 7 (4) , 88
Abstract
Background: Accuracy of optical impressions—defined by the intraoral scanner (IOS)’s trueness and precision per International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards—is influenced by both operator- and patient-related factors. Thus, this in vitro study aimed to (1) evaluate how scanning distance affects the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs), and (2) identify the optimal scanning distance for each scanner. Methods: A maxillary arch model was obtained using polyvinyl siloxane impression material and poured with Type IV stone (Octa-rock royal®, Kulzer, Germany). Using three different types of IOSs—the trios 3 shape (TRIOS ® cart, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark); the Helios 500 (Eighteeth ®, Changzhou, China); and the Heron (3Disc ®, Herndon, VA 20170, USA)—ten scans were performed with each of the IOSs with five predetermined distances: 0 mm, 2.5 mm, 5 mm, 7.5 mm, and 10 mm. Spacers of varying heights were designed using Meshmixer version 3.5 (Autodesk, Inc., Mill Valley, CA, USA) and three-dimensional printed with the Form 2 printer (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA). The scanned data was processed using Geomagic Control X (Version 16.0.2.16496, 3D Systems, Wilsonville, OR, USA). Statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software (version 4.2.2), with significance set at α = 0.05. Results: Scanning distance significantly influenced scan accuracy for all three scanners. The 3Disc scanner (3Disc, Herndon, VA, USA) demonstrated the highest accuracy at a 7.5 mm distance, while both the Helios 500 (Eighteeth, Changzhou, China) and Trios 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) scanners achieved their best accuracy at a 5 mm distance, as indicated by the lowest root mean square (RMS) values (p < 0.05). Conclusions: To conclude, each IOS has an optimal scanning distance for best accuracy. Trios 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) outperformed the others in both trueness and precision. Future studies should examine these effects under full-arch and clinical conditions.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: A systematic review and network meta-analysisJournal of Dentistry, 2023
- Scanning accuracy and scanning area discrepancies of intraoral digital scans acquired at varying scanning distances and angulations among 4 different intraoral scannersThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2023
- Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro StudyEuropean Journal of Dentistry, 2022
- Digital Intraoral Impression Methods: an Update on AccuracyCurrent Oral Health Reports, 2020
- Effects of Scanning Strategy and Scanner Type on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scans: A New Approach for Assessing the Accuracy of Scanned DataJournal of Prosthodontics, 2020
- Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scannersJournal of Prosthodontic Research, 2019
- Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part III: Marginal and internal fitThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2019
- The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra‐oral scanners used in dentistryClinical Anatomy, 2019
- Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluationThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2018
- In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologiesThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 2016