Accuracy of Four Intra-Oral Scanners in Subgingival Vertical Preparation: An In Vitro 3-Dimensional Comparative Analysis

Abstract

One of the most critical aspects in intraoral impression is the detection of the finish line, particularly in the case of subgingival preparations. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy among four different Intra Oral Scanners (IOSs) in scanning a subgingival vertical margins preparation (VP). A reference maxillary typodont (MT) was fabricated with a VP for full crown on #16 and #21. The MT was scanned with a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain a digital MT (dMT) in .stl format file. A group of 40 digital casts (dIOC) were obtained by scanning the MT 10 times with four different IOSs: Trios 3, 3Shape A/S; I700, Medit; Vivascan, Ivoclar; and Experimental IOS, GC. All the obtained dIOCs were imported into an inspection software program (Geomagic Control X; 3D SYSTEMS) to be superimposed to the dMT in order to calculate trueness. Therefore, in order to calculate precision, all the scans of the same scanner group were superimposed onto the cast that obtained the best result of trueness. The results were collected as the root mean square value (RMS) on the #16 and #21 abutment surfaces and on a marginal area positioned 1 mm above and below the gingival margin. A nonparametric analysis Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to compare the RMS values obtained in the different iOS groups for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at 0.05. For the trueness on the #16 abutment, the Vivascan reported statistically lower values, while on the #21 abutment, Vivascan (56.0 ± 12.1) and Experimental IOS, GC (59.2 ± 2.7) performed statistically better than the others. Regarding precision, Experimental IOS, GC were significantly better than the others on #16 (10.7 ± 2.1) and in the #21 area Experimental, GC, and Trios 3 performed statistically better(16.9 ± 13.8; 18.0 ± 2.7). At the subgingival marginal level for both #16 and #21, all the IOS reported reduced accuracy compared to clinical acceptance.