ACCURACY AND PRECISION OF SIX DIGITAL SCANNERS IN FULL ARCH MAXILLARY SCANS: AN IN VITRO COMPARATIVE STUDY

Resumo

The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and precision of full arch maxillary digital scans produced by six digital scanners. Materials and Methods: A standard model was scanned by a reference scanner to obtain a standard digital reference model. This same model was then scanned ten times by three intraoral scanners and three benchtop scanners, which are: CS3600 (Carestream Health, Rochester, New York, USA), iTero element 2 (Align Technology, San José, California, USA), Trios (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), Ceramill Map 400 (Amann Girrbach, Koblach, Feldkirch district, Austria), Identica T500 (Medit), and Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI (Zirkonzahn, Gais, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Switzerland). To evaluate accuracy and precision, each obtained scan was superimposed on the standard digital model in reverse engineering software, Geomagic Control X (Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA), where a color map was generated and distances between specific points of interest were quantified. A trend report calculated the standard deviation in each of these scans. A one-way analysis of variance and a Games-Howell test were performed to measure deviations. Statistical calculations were performed using SPSS 23 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) at a significance level of 5%. Results: The benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400 showed greater accuracy than the intraoral scanners iTero element 2 and Trios, followed by the CS3600 scanner. The benchtop scanners Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI and Identica T500 showed the worst accuracy among all evaluated equipment. The benchtop scanners Ceramill Map 400 and Identica T500 showed better precision, followed by the iTero element 2 and Trios scanners. The intraoral scanner CS3600 presented lower precision compared to these other scanners, but the benchtop scanner Zirkonzahn S600 ARTI had the lowest precision. Conclusion: We conclude from this research that accuracy and precision were directly influenced by the scanner used. The benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400 presented the best accuracy. The benchtop scanners Zirkonzhan S600 ARTI and Identica T500 showed the worst accuracy; the intraoral scanners iTero, Trios, and CS3600 showed intermediate and very similar results in both accuracy and precision; the benchtop scanner Identica T500, which had the worst accuracy performance, along with the benchtop scanner Ceramill Map 400, obtained the best precision. The scanner Zirkonzhan