Evaluation and comparison of the scanning accuracy of three intraoral scanners for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture by three-dimensional digital superimposition technique and measurement of vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional-printed resin retainers: An in vitro study.
{"title":"Evaluation and comparison of the scanning accuracy of three intraoral scanners for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture by three-dimensional digital superimposition technique and measurement of vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional-printed resin retainers: An in vitro study.","authors":"Mansi Dhiran, Ajay Sabane, Abhijit Ashok Patil, Arti Gachake, Darshana Mundhe, Rupali Patil","doi":"10.4103/jips.jips_248_26","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to evaluate and compare the scanning accuracy of three IOSs and measuring the vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional (3D) printed resin retainers for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture situations.</p><p><strong>Settings and design: </strong>Comparative In Vitro Study.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A maxillary Nissin typodont with prepared abutments at #13, #23, #25, #27, and #16 served as the master model. A calibrated Shining 3D laboratory scanner provided the reference standard tessellation language (control). Each IOS generated six scans ( n = 6/scanner; 18 test scans). Trueness and precision were derived by best-fit superimposition in Geomagic Design X. Fifty-four single-unit, three-unit, and cross-arch retainers were 3D-printed. Vertical marginal discrepancy was measured at mid-buccal and mid-lingual sites using a digital stereomicroscope (×20).</p><p><strong>Statistical analysis used: </strong>One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test was used for comparisons among scanners and prosthesis spans. Pearson's correlation was used to assess the relationship between trueness and marginal fit, and Chi-square test was used to assess clinical acceptability. A P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3Shape TRIOS 3 showed the highest trueness (28.5 ± 5.2 µm) and precision (18.2 ± 3.1 µm), followed by Medit i700 and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3 ( P < 0.001). Marginal discrepancy was lowest with 3Shape TRIOS 3 (52.4 ± 6.5 µm) and increased with span. A positive correlation was found between trueness and marginal fit ( r = 0.82; P < 0.001). Clinical acceptability was 100%, 94.4%, and 77.8% for 3Shape TRIOS 3, Medit i700, and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3, respectively ( P = 0.041).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three scanners delivered clinically acceptable results; 3Shape TRIOS 3 yielded the highest accuracy and best marginal adaptation. Accuracy and marginal fit deteriorated as prosthesis span increased.</p>","PeriodicalId":22669,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","volume":"26 4","pages":"378-388"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_248_26","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the scanning accuracy of three IOSs and measuring the vertical marginal fit of three-dimensional (3D) printed resin retainers for single crown, three-unit, and cross-arch fixed partial denture situations.
Settings and design: Comparative In Vitro Study.
Materials and methods: A maxillary Nissin typodont with prepared abutments at #13, #23, #25, #27, and #16 served as the master model. A calibrated Shining 3D laboratory scanner provided the reference standard tessellation language (control). Each IOS generated six scans ( n = 6/scanner; 18 test scans). Trueness and precision were derived by best-fit superimposition in Geomagic Design X. Fifty-four single-unit, three-unit, and cross-arch retainers were 3D-printed. Vertical marginal discrepancy was measured at mid-buccal and mid-lingual sites using a digital stereomicroscope (×20).
Statistical analysis used: One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test was used for comparisons among scanners and prosthesis spans. Pearson's correlation was used to assess the relationship between trueness and marginal fit, and Chi-square test was used to assess clinical acceptability. A P value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: 3Shape TRIOS 3 showed the highest trueness (28.5 ± 5.2 µm) and precision (18.2 ± 3.1 µm), followed by Medit i700 and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3 ( P < 0.001). Marginal discrepancy was lowest with 3Shape TRIOS 3 (52.4 ± 6.5 µm) and increased with span. A positive correlation was found between trueness and marginal fit ( r = 0.82; P < 0.001). Clinical acceptability was 100%, 94.4%, and 77.8% for 3Shape TRIOS 3, Medit i700, and Shining 3D Aoralscan 3, respectively ( P = 0.041).
Conclusion: All three scanners delivered clinically acceptable results; 3Shape TRIOS 3 yielded the highest accuracy and best marginal adaptation. Accuracy and marginal fit deteriorated as prosthesis span increased.