RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image

acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation
Ryan Jin-Young Kim, BDS, MSD, PhD,a Ji-Man Park, PhD,b and June-Sung Shim, DDS, PhDc

With the advancement of ABSTRACT

computer-aided design and
computer-aided manufacturing
(CAD-CAM) technology, digital
dentistry has increased in
popularity and provides more
efficient and predictable treat-
ment outcomes. The clinical use
of CAD-CAM devices includes
diagnosis and treatment plan-
ning for implant surgery, pros-
thetic rehabilitation, and
orthodontic treatment to the
fabrication of restorations and
maxillofacial prostheses.1-6 With
the demand for simplification of
cumbersome conventional
impression procedures, the use
of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has
increased. The intraoral digital
scanning technique is more
rapid and convenient from the
perspective of both dentists and
patients.7
The accuracy of the
impression reflects the defini-
tive outcome of the restora-
tion. As the poor adaptation of
a restoration can cause com-
plications such as secondary
caries and periodontal disease,
the marginal discrepancy
Statement of problem. Different intraoral scanners (IOSs) are available for digital dentistry.
However, information on the accuracy of various IOSs for complete-arch digital scans is limited.
Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of complete-
arch digital scans produced by 9 IOSs, using the superimposition method, and to compare them
based on characteristics including the data capture principle and mode and the need for
powder coating.
Material and methods. Nine IOSs were used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) data for
a bimaxillary complete-arch model with various cavity preparations (N=10). The scanning
performance was evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. For quantitative evaluation, the
images were processed and analyzed using 3-dimensional (3D) analysis software. After we
superimposed the datasets, trueness was obtained by comparing it with the reference scan, and
precision was obtained from intragroup comparisons. The IOSs were compared based on the
data capture principle and mode and the need for powder coating. Statistical analyses were
conducted using a Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by multiple Mann-Whitney U tests for pairwise
comparisons among groups (a=.05). For qualitative evaluation, surface smoothness and sharp
edge reproducibility of the digital images were compared.
Results. The median precision values were lowest in the TRIOS model (average, 34.70 mm; maximum,
263.55 mm) and highest in the E4D model (average, 357.05 mm; maximum 2309.45 mm). Median
average trueness values were lowest in the TRIOS model (42.30 mm) and highest in the Zfx IntraScan
model (153.80 mm). The CS 3500 model had the lowest median maximum trueness values (450.75 mm);
the E4D model had the highest values (2680.55 mm). Individual image and video sequence data
captures showed similar median average trueness values (P>.05); the median maximum values of
individual images were higher than those of the video sequence (P<.05). Swept source optical
coherence tomography (SS-OCT) exhibited higher trueness values than those of other scanning
principles (P<.05). The FastScan and True Definition, which require powder coating, showed
significantly better trueness than other IOSs that did not require powdering (P<.05). The E4D,
PlanScan, and Zfx IntraScan models had an increased tendency to produce images with imperfect
surface features and to round off sharp edges.
Conclusions. The E4D and Zfx IntraScan models did not perform as accurately as the other IOSs.
The data capture principle of SS-OCT and the mode of individual image acquisition exhibited
inferior trueness. The FastScan and True Definition, which require powder coating, exhibited better
trueness. The qualitative aspects of the IOSs varied in terms of polygon shapes, sharp edge
reproducibility, and surface smoothness. (J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:895-903)

Supported by Industrial Technology Innovation Program, funded by Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy award 10053907.
a
Assistant Professor, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
b
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University, College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
c
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Yonsei University, College of Dentistry, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 895

896
Clinical Implications
Although the field of digital scanning is expanding
rapidly, clinicians should be aware of the limitations
of current intraoral scanners (IOSs) and that not all
IOSs perform equally. Within the limitations of this
study, the E4D and Zfx IntraScan models did not
seem to perform as accurately as other IOSs for
complete-arch digital scanning.
should be less than 120 mm,8 which is the clinically
acceptable width to improve the longevity of restorations.
Thus, IOSs should be capable of reproducing minute
details of the tooth surface in a digital cast. Furthermore,
for fabrication of a precise, well-fitting dental prosthesis,
information from image acquisition, such as form and
dimensions, should not be distorted during conversion to
3-dimensional (3D) data.
As the intraoral condition cannot be identified with a
single scan image with current systems, multiple scan
images are required and are stitched together at over-
lapping areas to obtain definitive virtual oral structures.
According to the data capture mode, IOSs can be classified
as either individual image or video sequence systems. IOSs
can also be classified based on the data capture principle,
such as active triangulation, confocal microscopy, optical
coherence tomography, and active wavefront sampling.
IOSs can be further classified by the need for powder
coating as a contrast medium before scanning. Perfor-
mance of IOSs may vary depending on these parameters.
IOS performance has been compared with conven-
tional impression techniques by evaluating the marginal
adaptation9,10 or both the marginal and internal fit of
fabricated restorations.11,12 These studies have shown
that restorations fabricated from digital scans with IOSs
were better than or similar to those from conventional
impressions. However, as errors may occur while fabri-
cating or seating the restoration, this method of evalu-
ating IOS performance has intrinsic limitations.
For IOSs that require powder coating, the possible
risk of particle exposure to patients and clinicians during
the application has been described.13 Although irregular
powder coating was found to be the most commonly
occurring error,14 even an excessive coat did not nega-
tively affect scanning performance.15
The accuracy of IOSs can be described in terms of
trueness and precision. Trueness refers to the agreement
between the arithmetical mean of a large number of test
results and the true or accepted reference value; precision
refers to the agreement among test results.16 Superim-
position of digitized datasets is a well-established method
for evaluating accuracy, in which deviations between 2
datasets can be visualized and measured with 3D analysis
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Volume 120 Issue 6
software. The precision and trueness of IOSs have been
measured in in vitro studies by using the superimposition
method after scanning various models, including the sin-
gle model,15,17 multiunit model,18-20 complete-arch
model,20-24 and edentulous jaw model.25 In addition,
in vivo studies have evaluated the precision of IOSs with
quadrant scans26 and complete-arch scans.27
However, few studies have evaluated the accuracy
(trueness and precision) of various IOSs in the acqui-
sition of a complete-arch model with different cavity
preparations. The authors are unaware of a study
demonstrating the quality of triangular mesh generated
on the digital model from geometry processing. Few
studies have compared the various IOSs by using the
data capture principle (active triangulation, confocal
microscopy, optical coherence tomography, and active
wavefront sampling), data capture mode (individual
image and video sequence), and need for powder
coating (coated and noncoated).
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the
trueness and precision of 9 IOSs for complete-arch digital
scanning by using the superimposition method and to
compare the scanners according to characteristics of the
data capture principle, data capture mode, and need for
powder coating. The primary null hypothesis was that no
differences would be found in trueness or precision
among the various IOSs. The secondary null hypothesis
was that the characteristics of the IOS would not influ-
ence data accuracy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
To eliminate procedural errors in cavity preparation, this
study used computer numerically controlled milled arti-
ficial teeth (A50H-Set; Morita Corp) made of epoxy resin,
with various cavity preparations. The teeth were screw-
retained in both maxillary and mandibular models (E50;
J. Morita Europe GmbH). The type of cavity preparation
and the positions of the artificial teeth are shown in
Figure 1. During the experiment, the teeth were not
removed from the model or subjected to external forces.
All experiments were conducted at 23 C ±1 C and 50%
±5% relative humidity. A desktop industrial grade scan-
ner (stereoSCAN R8; AICON 3D Systems GmbH)
equipped with 2 high-resolution cameras (8 megapixels)
with an accuracy of 8 mm and a resolution of 20 mm, was
used to acquire reference standard tessellation language
(STL) datasets of the maxillary and mandibular master
models to evaluate and compare the trueness of 9 IOSs.
Table 1 lists the IOSs used in the study. The scanning
procedure was performed 10 times for each scanner ac-
cording to the manufacturers’ instructions by a trained,
experienced operator (J.P.). A thin layer of powder was
coated onto the model before scanning with the stereo-
SCAN R8 reference (Standard-Chek Developer 3;
Kim et al
December 2018 897

Figure 1. Position and type of prepared artificial teeth of master model. A, Maxillary model. B, Mandibular model. C, Mesio-occlusal inlay preparation on
maxillary right second molar. D, Mesio-occlusal inlay preparation on maxillary right first molar. E, Occlusal inlay preparation on maxillary right first
premolar. F, Complete coverage crown preparation on maxillary right canine. G, Complete coverage crown preparation on maxillary right central
incisor. H, Complete coverage crown preparation on maxillary left canine. I, Complete coverage crown preparation on maxillary left second premolar.
J, Complete coverage crown preparation on maxillary left second molar. K, Occlusobuccal inlay preparation on mandibular left first molar.
L, Mesio-occlusal-distal inlay preparation with lingual cusp capping on a mandibular left second premolar. M, Complete coverage crown preparation
on mandibular left lateral incisor. N, Post-and-core preparation on mandibular right canine. O, Complete coverage crown preparation on mandibular
right second premolar. P, Complete coverage crown preparation on mandibular right second molar.

Table 1. Characteristics of intraoral scanners

Scanner Light Acquisition Necessity
System Manufacturer Technology Source Method of Coating
CEREC Omnicam Dentsply Sirona Active triangulation Light Video sequence None
with strip light projection
CS 3500 Carestream Health Inc Active triangulation (stream Light Individual image None
projection)
E4D Dentist (Initial version) E4D Technologies Swept source optical coherence tomography Laser Individual image None but
occasionally
FastScan IOS Technologies, Inc Active triangulation and Laser Individual image Yes
Scheimpflug principle
iTero (1st generation) Align Technology Inc Parallel confocal microscopy Red laser Individual image None
PlanScan Planmeca Oy Laser triangulation Laser Video sequence None
TRIOS (2nd generation) 3shape A/S Confocal microscopy Light Video sequence None
True Definition (Gold-nine version) 3M ESPE Active wavefront sampling Light Video sequence Yes
Zfx IntraScan Zfx GmbH Confocal microscopy and moiré Laser Video sequence None
effect detection

Helling GmbH), FastScan (IOS FastScan Spray; IOS STL datasets from each IOS were superimposed on
Technologies, Inc), and True Definition (High-Resolution the reference dataset obtained by the reference scanner
Scanning Spray; 3M ESPE) scanners. to evaluate the trueness of the IOS. To evaluate the

Kim et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

898 Volume 120 Issue 6

Average Trueness Maximum Trueness

CEREC
d d
Omnicam
CS 3500 c d

E4D a a
Intraoral Scanner

FastScan d c

iTero d b

PlanScan b c

TRIOS e c
True
* e c
Definition
Zfx a b
IntraScan

0 50 100 150 200 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 µm

Deviation (µm)

Average Precision Maximum Precision

CEREC
Omnicam b d
CS 3500
c d

E4D a a
Intraoral Scanner

FastScan b c
**

iTero b c

PlanScan b c

TRIOS d d
True
d c
Definition
Zfx * a b
IntraScan

0 200 400 600 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 µm

Deviation (µm)
Figure 2. Box plot diagrams show average and maximum values for trueness and precision of investigated intraoral scanners. Matching lowercase
letters (right) indicate no statistical differences between scanners (P>.05).

precision of the IOS, STL datasets from the same scanner
were superimposed to acquire the average deviation.
Inspection software (Geomagic Verify v4.1.0.0; 3D Sys-
tems) was used to superimpose the scanned STL data-
sets. This software also provided color-coded maps to
visualize the magnitude and distribution of deviation
between the digital casts acquired by the reference
scanner and each IOS. The IOSs were compared in 3
categories, the data capture mode, consisting of individual
images (CS 3500, E4D, FastScan, and iTero) versus video
sequence (CEREC Omnicam, PlanScan, TRIOS, True
Definition, and Zfx IntraScan); the data capture principle,
consisting of active triangulation (CS 3500, FastScan,
CEREC Omnicam, and PlanScan) versus confocal micro-
scopy (iTero, TRIOS, and Zfx IntraScan) versus swept
source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) (E4D)
versus active wavefront sampling (True Definition); and
the need for powder coating (FastScan and True Defini-
tion) versus noncoating (CS 3500, E4D, iTero, CEREC
Omnicam, PlanScan, TRIOS, and Zfx IntraScan).
Images of the digital model from each IOS were
captured at specific angles and frames deemed to be

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Kim et al

December 2018 899

good demonstrations of the surface smoothness and Table 2. Comparison of trueness by data capture principle, mode, and
edge sharpness of the prepared teeth. The density and powder coating
geometry of polygons within an isolated area were Average Maximum

visualized. Variable n Median (Q1-Q3) Median (Q1-Q3)

Data capture
Deformations of the digital models acquired by the principle
IOSs were collected. An overview of these qualitative Confocal 30 49.35 (43.80-127.50)b 1092.05 (632.80-1383.00)b
parameters was summarized for comparison among the microscopy
tested IOSs. Triangulation 40 73.50 (48.55-96.95)b 696.40 (473.50-849.40)c
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was carried out to verify SS-OCT 10 137.00 (111.90-160.00)a 2680.55 (2244.50-2911.70)a
the normality of each variable. The median average and Wavefront 10 43.50 (37.80-48.50)c 457.35 (260.80-521.70)d
sampling
maximum values for trueness and precision of the IOSs, as Chi-square 23.055* 42.701**
well as the trueness values of the data capture principle, P <.001 <.001
were analyzed by using a Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Data capture mode
multiple Mann-Whitney U tests for pairwise comparisons Individual images 40 70.55 (48.05-100.00) 968.20 (546.60-1698.60)
between groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was also used Video sequence 50 56.45 (40.80-112.40) 711.30 (429.60-927.70)
to compare the trueness of the systems using individual Z -0.698 -2.891**
images to the systems using video sequence method and P .485 .004
the powder coating on noncoated systems. Statistical an- Powder coating
alyses were conducted by using statistical software (IBM Yes 20 46.70 (40.20-65.20) 625.05 (457.35-796.70)
SPSS Statistics, v20.0; IBM Corp) (a=.05). No 70 79.05 (46.50-123.40) 847.90 (505.10-1383.00)
Z -3.188* -2.485**
P .001 .013
RESULTS
SS-OCT, swept source optical coherence tomography. Superscript letters mean multiple
The average and maximum values of trueness are shown comparison. *P<.01; **P<.05.
in Figure 2. Significantly higher trueness values were
observed with the E4D and Zfx IntraScan scanners
The following noticeable deviations were observed in
(P<.05). The median average trueness values ranged from
the E4D scanner: lingual contraction of the maxillary
42.30 mm (TRIOS) to 153.80 mm (Zfx IntraScan). The
posterior region; expansion of the mandibular posterior
lowest median maximum trueness value was observed in
region and proclination of the anterior region were
the True Definition scanner (457.35 mm); the highest
seen with the PlanScan; and contraction of the left
value was observed in the E4D scanner (2680.55 mm).
maxillary quadrant was noticed with the Zfx IntraScan.
Table 2 and Figure 3 show the values for IOS trueness
When the digitized models acquired by the IOSs were
according to the data capture principle, data capture
compared with the reference model, the sharp lines
mode, and need for powder coating. Wavefront sampling
around the post spaces were rounded in the digital
showed significantly lower trueness values, and SS-OCT
models obtained by the E4D, PlanScan, and Zfx
showed significantly higher trueness values than those
IntraScan scanners (Fig 5A). Generally, the FastScan,
that used confocal microscopy or triangulation scanning
PlanScan, and TRIOS scanners produced relatively
principles. With respect to the data capture mode, the
higher numbers of polygons per unit area. The geom-
median average values for individual images and the
etry of the polygons varied among the IOSs (Fig. 5B).
video sequence were similar, whereas the median
These IOSs occasionally produced images with typi-
maximum values of the individual images were higher
cally imperfect surface features, such as stepped im-
than the video sequence. The FastScan and True Defi-
ages in E4D scans, spicule-like irregularities in the
nition IOSs, which require a powder coating before
cervical area of the PlanScan, and voids or dimples in
scanning, exhibited significantly better trueness than
the Zfx IntraScan (Fig. 5C, Supplemental Fig. 1).
IOSs that did not require powdering (P<.05).
The reliability of the reference scanner, stereoSCAN
DISCUSSION
R8, was validated, as no statistically significant differences
were found among the 5 reference scans. Among the IOSs, Based on the findings of the present study, the precision
the E4D and Zfx IntraScan showed significantly lower and trueness values of the 9 individual IOSs were
precision (P<.05). The median average precision values different. Therefore, the first null hypothesis was re-
ranged from 34.70 mm (TRIOS) to 357.05 mm (E4D), jected. Significant differences were observed in the data
whereas the median maximum precision values ranged accuracy of the IOSs, with the exception of the average
from 263.55 mm (TRIOS) to 2309.45 mm (E4D) (Fig. 2). trueness values between the individual image and video
The representative deviation patterns of the sequence modes. Therefore, the second null hypothesis
complete-arch digital models are presented in Figure 4. of this study was partially accepted.

Kim et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

900 Volume 120 Issue 6

Average Trueness Maximum Trueness

Confocal
b b
microscopy

Data Capture Principle

Triangulation b c

SS-OCT a a

Wavefront
* c d
sampling

0 50 100 150 200 250 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 µm

Deviation (µm)
Average Trueness Maximum Trueness

Individual
a
Data Capture Mode

images

Video
b
sequence

0 50 100 150 200 250 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 µm

Deviation (µm)
Average Trueness Maximum Trueness
Need for Powder Coating

Powder b b
coating

No
a * a
coating

0 50 100 150 200 250 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 µm

Deviation (µm)
Figure 3. Box plot diagrams show comparison of trueness by data capture principle, mode, and powder coating. Matching letters (right) indicate no
statistical differences between groups (P>.05). SS-OCT, swept source optical coherence tomography.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Kim et al

December 2018
Figure 4. Deviation of digital casts acquired by IOSs relative to reference scanner. Range of deviation is color coded from −200 mm (blue) to +200 mm
(red). IOS(s), intraoral scanner.
In this study, the accuracy of the IOS was evaluated
quantitatively and qualitatively. For quantitative evalua-
tion, the average and maximum values of precision and
trueness were compared. The E4D and Zfx IntraScan
scanners showed the highest average and maximum
values for both precision and trueness; they did not
perform as accurately as the other IOSs.
Few studies have measured the accuracy of complete-
arch impressions obtained by IOSs. Ender and Mehl21
compared the accuracy of digital scanning (Lava COS
and CEREC Bluecam) to conventional impressions
(Impregum) of an in vitro complete-arch model. They
reported similar trueness between the digital and con-
ventional impressions, whereas the CEREC Bluecam
showed significantly higher precision than the conven-
tional and Lava COS. However, Patzeldt et al,23 in their
evaluation of 4 IOSs (CEREC Bluecam, iTero, Lava COS,
and Zfx IntraScan), demonstrated that the CEREC
Bluecam was the least accurate. According to an in vivo
study by Ender et al,27 the precision of the conventional
impressions was similar to or better than the digital
scans of the CEREC Bluecam, Cerec Omnicam, iTero,
Lava COS, True Definition, and TRIOS. Recently, the
accuracy levels of 6 intraoral scanners were evaluated by
Kim et al
901
Renne et al,20 who reported complete-arch trueness and
precision values similar to those from the present study,
with the exception of the average trueness of the Plan-
Scan. The contradictory results reported in the different
studies could be explained by different methodologies,
including variations in the master model, scanning
strategies, or software for scanning and analysis.
Digital scans from each IOS were compared with
those from the reference scanner to visualize the typical
deviation patterns on the color-coded deviation maps.
Although arch deviations were found in all IOSs, the
magnitude and direction of the distortions varied.
Remarkable arch distortions of most sextants were
observed, especially from the E4D and Zfx IntraScan,
whereas minor fluctuations were found in the other
systems. Errors occurring during the software stitching
process and their cumulative effect are considered major
factors in arch deviations.24,28
In this study, an identical region of the digital model
was selected to standardize the area for qualitative
evaluation of IOS performance. Generally, the E4D,
PlanScan, and Zfx IntraScan IOSs produced more noise
and were unable to reproduce sharp edges. These qual-
itative findings corroborated the results from the
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
902
Figure 5. A, Representative digital casts corresponding to master model.
B, Surface smoothness and enlarged image of black box area shows
polygon shapes from each IOS. C, Scanned images with imperfect
surfaces. IOS, intraoral scanner.
quantitative analysis, as more artifacts and rounding of
the transition edges occurred in those scanners that had
higher precision and trueness values. The undesirable
outcomes of the Zfx IntraScan could be explained by
limitations of the compensation algorithm due to the
Moiré effect. The undesirable outcome of E4D could be
explained by errors in stitching the overlapping images
due to pattern recognition15; furthermore, the undesir-
able outcome of the PlanScan could be because it has an
operating system similar to that of the E4D, with the
same light source and data capture mode.
In addition, the digital models of the maxillary right
central incisor were compared in terms of the density and
geometry of the polygons for qualitative evaluation of the
IOSs (Fig. 5B). The numbers of polygons per unit area
were relatively higher in FastScan, PlanScan, and TRIOS
IOSs, followed by the iTero, True Definition, E4D,
CS3500, Cerec Omnicam, and Zfx IntraScan models. The
resolution is presumably proportional to the number of
polygons created on the model, because the quality of the
digital model would be enhanced if the IOS had a higher
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Volume 120 Issue 6
resolution. However, IOSs that produced higher
numbers of polygons per unit area did not seem to
generate more accurate digital models. The PlanScan unit
had a higher number of polygons but produced a less
accurate model, and the True Definition had high accu-
racy despite the lower number of polygons. This could be
attributed to the identical size and shape of the polygons,
which are probably optimal for the generation of digital
models. In addition to the number of polygons, a
considering factor for application of dental CAD is the
shape of the polygons, which could be broadly grouped
into regular (equilateral) or skinny (needle, one edge
length close to zero) triangles. Generally, a mesh made of
regular triangles generates fewer errors for calculating
restoration surface geometry.29
With respect to the data capture principle, the SS-
OCT was not as accurate as the other scanning princi-
ples. However, the conclusion that SS-OCT is not an
ideal operational principle for IOSs is not supported,
because the E4D model was the only system in this study
that used SS-OCT.
Powder application is recommended by the manu-
facturers to create a uniformly reflective surface when
using FastScan or True Definition. Despite speculation
that the powder coating may impair the scanning accu-
racy, these 2 IOSs performed better than those without
the powder coating. Our result was consistent with
Nedelcu and Persson,15 who reported higher accuracy
with powder coating IOSs, even with excessive coating.
Nevertheless, a reference scanner that can accurately
reproduce a real object without any coating, if available,
seems more ideal for direct comparison between systems
with and without powder coating. Further studies of
powder application for other scanners would help vali-
date whether the powder coating enhances the scanning
accuracy and whether the benefit outweighs the draw-
backs, including additional operation time and possible
harmful effects from inhalation of the powder.13 Kim
et al14 analyzed 1251 clinical digital scans by using the
CEREC AC systems, which require a powder coating.
They found the most commonly occurring error during
digital scanning procedures was an irregular powder
arrangement, contributing to 21.1% of the total errors.
Therefore, the powder should be carefully applied, to
avoid either insufficient or excessive application.
In this study, an in vitro reference model was scanned
to focus on the variables related to the type of IOS.
However, in a clinical setting, the performance of the IOS
would be influenced by the presence of saliva, crevicular
fluid, blood, and moisture from breathing. The scanning
procedure would be further complicated by patient
movement, as well as by anatomic features such as the
tongue, lips, and cheeks. Hence, the results of the pre-
sent study must be carefully interpreted.
Kim et al
December 2018
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The E4D and Zfx IntraScan IOSs were found to be
inferior to the other IOSs for complete-arch digital
scanning.
2. The data capture principle of SS-OCT and the in-
dividual image acquisition mode exhibited inferior
trueness. The IOSs that required powder coating
showed better trueness.
3. The qualitative features varied among IOSs in terms
of polygon shapes, sharp edge reproducibility, and
surface smoothness.
REFERENCES
1. Bentz RM, Balshi SF. Complete oral rehabilitation with implants using CAD/
CAM technology, stereolithography, and conoscopic holography. Implant
Dent 2012;21:8-12.
2. El Kerdani T, Roushdy S. The use of CAD/CAM technology for fabricating
cast gold survey crowns under existing partial removable dental prosthesis. A
clinical report. J Prosthodont 2017;26:321-6.
3. Gougoutas AJ, Bastidas N, Bartlett SP, Jackson O. The use of computer-aided
design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology to aid in the reconstruction of
congenitally deficient pediatric mandibles: a case series. Int J Pediatr
Otorhinolaryngol 2015;79:2332-42.
4. Infante L, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy E, Finger I. Fabricating complete dentures
with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:351-5.
5. Kapos T, Evans C. CAD/CAM technology for implant abutments, crowns,
and superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(suppl):117-36.
6. Williams RJ, Bibb R, Eggbeer D, Collis J. Use of CAD/CAM technology to
fabricate a removable partial denture framework. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:96-9.
7. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J.
Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional
impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont
2016;25:282-7.
8. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by
an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11.
9. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in vitro
comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations
using different impression systems. J Prosthodont 2017;26:581-6.
10. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D.
Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with
CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral
digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:554-9.
11. Rodiger M, Heinitz A, Burgers R, Rinke S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single
crowns produced via digital and conventional impressionsda clinical
comparative study. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:579-87.
12. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed
dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression.
J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:362-7.
Kim et al
903
13. Rupf S, Berger H, Buchter A, Harth V, Ong MF, Hannig M. Exposure of
patient and dental staff to fine and ultrafine particles from scanning spray.
Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:823-30.
14. Kim JH, Kim KB, Kim SH, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim JH. Quantitative
evaluation of common errors in digital impression obtained by using an LED
blue light in-office CAD/CAM system. Quintessence Int 2015;46:401-7.
15. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral
scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet
Dent 2014;112:1461-71.
16. International Organization of Standardization. ISO 5725e1. Accuracy
(trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1:
General principles and definitions. Geneva: ISO; 1994. Available at:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-1:v1:en. Accessed
April 19, 2018.
17. Gonzalez de Villaumbrosia P, Martinez-Rus F, Garcia-Orejas A, Salido MP,
Pradies G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six
extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet
Dent 2016;116:543-50.
18. Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of
five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig
2017;21:1445-55.
19. Park JM. Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners:
sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form.
J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:354-62.
20. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al.
Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on
3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:36-42.
21. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressionsean
in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
22. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and
digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int
2015;46:9-17.
23. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch
scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94.
24. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new
method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:
121-8.
25. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy
of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144:914-20.
26. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional
and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral
Investig 2016;20:1495-504.
27. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital
methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent
2016;115:313-20.
28. Yang C, Medioni G. Object modeling by registration of multiple range
images. Image Vis Comput 1992;10:145-55.
29. Botsch M, Kobbelt L, Pauly M, Alliex P, Levy B. Polygon mesh processing.
Natick, MA: AK Peters Ltd; 2010. p. 139-44.
Corresponding author:
Dr Ji-Man Park
Department of Prosthodontics
Yonsei University, College of Dentistry
50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Email: jimarn@gmail.com
Copyright © 2018 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
903.e1 Volume 120 Issue 6

Supplemental Figure 1. Digital casts with errors. Additional scanned images with imperfect surfaces are shown in Figure 4C.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Kim et al