Yaniv Mayer, Yarden Berg, Or Kfir, Alessio Triestino, Zvi Gutmacher, Luigi Canullo
{"title":"Influence of edentulous span length on complete-arch intraoral scanner accuracy: a comparative in vitro study.","authors":"Yaniv Mayer, Yarden Berg, Or Kfir, Alessio Triestino, Zvi Gutmacher, Luigi Canullo","doi":"10.3290/j.qi.b6394659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>While intraoral scanners (IOS) demonstrate high accuracy in single-tooth and partial-arch applications, their reliability in full-arch scans with varying edentulous spans remains uncertain. Increasing span length may compromise scanning accuracy and prosthetic outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the influence of edentulous span length on the accuracy of two IOS devices Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) and Trios 3 (3Shape) in complete-arch scenarios. The hypothesis was that accuracy would decline with increasing span length, with performance differences between scanners.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An in vitro study was conducted using a maxillary complete-arch model with a central incisor implant. Twelve span-length scenarios (FA1-FA12) were created by sequentially removing adjacent teeth. Each condition was scanned 10 times using both IOS devices (n = 240). A laboratory scanner (Identica blue, MEDIT) provided reference scans. Trueness (vs. reference) and precision (intra-group) were evaluated using root mean square (RMS) error. Scans were aligned via automatic and local best-fit in Medit Design. Statistical analysis included two-way mixed ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and linear regression with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Trios 3 demonstrated lower overall RMS values (0.296 ± 0.043 mm) than Primescan (0.338 ± 0.049 mm), with significant differences in 9 of 12 scenarios (p < 0.001). Correlation with span length was stronger for Primescan (R² = 0.892) than Trios 3 (R² = 0.674). Both devices showed high reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increasing edentulous span length negatively impacts scanner accuracy. Devices demonstrating consistent performance are preferable for reliable full-arch digital workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":20831,"journal":{"name":"Quintessence international","volume":"0 0","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quintessence international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b6394659","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Statement of problem: While intraoral scanners (IOS) demonstrate high accuracy in single-tooth and partial-arch applications, their reliability in full-arch scans with varying edentulous spans remains uncertain. Increasing span length may compromise scanning accuracy and prosthetic outcomes.
Objectives: To assess the influence of edentulous span length on the accuracy of two IOS devices Primescan (Dentsply Sirona) and Trios 3 (3Shape) in complete-arch scenarios. The hypothesis was that accuracy would decline with increasing span length, with performance differences between scanners.
Material and methods: An in vitro study was conducted using a maxillary complete-arch model with a central incisor implant. Twelve span-length scenarios (FA1-FA12) were created by sequentially removing adjacent teeth. Each condition was scanned 10 times using both IOS devices (n = 240). A laboratory scanner (Identica blue, MEDIT) provided reference scans. Trueness (vs. reference) and precision (intra-group) were evaluated using root mean square (RMS) error. Scans were aligned via automatic and local best-fit in Medit Design. Statistical analysis included two-way mixed ANOVA, repeated measures ANOVA, and linear regression with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.004).
Results: Trios 3 demonstrated lower overall RMS values (0.296 ± 0.043 mm) than Primescan (0.338 ± 0.049 mm), with significant differences in 9 of 12 scenarios (p < 0.001). Correlation with span length was stronger for Primescan (R² = 0.892) than Trios 3 (R² = 0.674). Both devices showed high reliability.
Conclusions: Increasing edentulous span length negatively impacts scanner accuracy. Devices demonstrating consistent performance are preferable for reliable full-arch digital workflows.
期刊介绍:
QI has a new contemporary design but continues its time-honored tradition of serving the needs of the general practitioner with clinically relevant articles that are scientifically based. Dr Eli Eliav and his editorial board are dedicated to practitioners worldwide through the presentation of high-level research, useful clinical procedures, and educational short case reports and clinical notes. Rigorous but timely manuscript review is the first order of business in their quest to publish a high-quality selection of articles in the multiple specialties and disciplines that encompass dentistry.