Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners (IOS) by the virtual-fit method.
METHODS: Four maxillary arches with tooth abutments were scanned with an industrial reference scanner (n=1) and by Aoralscan3, EmeraldS, Helios600, Lumina, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 IOSs (each n=12). Two complete-arch fixed frameworks were designed on each IOS scan with a 70 µm (group 70) and a 90 µm internal cement space (group 70+20, additional 20 µm at the margin). The virtual-fit method was comprised of superimposing the framework designs onto the reference scan using a non-penetrating algorithm simulating the clinical try-in. Internal and marginal gaps were measured. Precision was estimated by the mean absolute errors (MAE).
RESULTS: In group 70, Mediti700 (43 µm), Primescan (42 µm), and EmeraldS were in the best homogenous subset for the marginal gap, followed by the Lumina (67 µm), Aoralscan3 (70 µm), and Trios5 (70 µm), whereas Helios600 (118 µm) was in the third subset. Based on the MAE at the margin, Mediti700, Trios5, and EmeraldS were in the first-best homogenous subset, followed by Primescan. Lumina and Helios600 were in the third subset, and Aoralscan3 was in the fourth subset. In group 70+20, the marginal gap was significantly decreased for Lumina and Aoralscan3, whereas MAE significantly decreased for EmeraldS and Aoralscan3. The rank of IOSs was similar for the internal gap.
CONCLUSIONS: EmeraldS, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 meet the marginal and internal fit criteria for fixed tooth-borne complete arch restorations. Increasing the cement space during design could enhance restoration fit.
CONCLUSIONS: The virtual-fit alignment method can effectively evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners, offering valuable clinical guidance for distinguishing among them. Recent software and hardware versions of long-standing IOS manufacturers are suitable for fabricating complete arch restoration.
METHODS: Four maxillary arches with tooth abutments were scanned with an industrial reference scanner (n=1) and by Aoralscan3, EmeraldS, Helios600, Lumina, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 IOSs (each n=12). Two complete-arch fixed frameworks were designed on each IOS scan with a 70 µm (group 70) and a 90 µm internal cement space (group 70+20, additional 20 µm at the margin). The virtual-fit method was comprised of superimposing the framework designs onto the reference scan using a non-penetrating algorithm simulating the clinical try-in. Internal and marginal gaps were measured. Precision was estimated by the mean absolute errors (MAE).
RESULTS: In group 70, Mediti700 (43 µm), Primescan (42 µm), and EmeraldS were in the best homogenous subset for the marginal gap, followed by the Lumina (67 µm), Aoralscan3 (70 µm), and Trios5 (70 µm), whereas Helios600 (118 µm) was in the third subset. Based on the MAE at the margin, Mediti700, Trios5, and EmeraldS were in the first-best homogenous subset, followed by Primescan. Lumina and Helios600 were in the third subset, and Aoralscan3 was in the fourth subset. In group 70+20, the marginal gap was significantly decreased for Lumina and Aoralscan3, whereas MAE significantly decreased for EmeraldS and Aoralscan3. The rank of IOSs was similar for the internal gap.
CONCLUSIONS: EmeraldS, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 meet the marginal and internal fit criteria for fixed tooth-borne complete arch restorations. Increasing the cement space during design could enhance restoration fit.
CONCLUSIONS: The virtual-fit alignment method can effectively evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners, offering valuable clinical guidance for distinguishing among them. Recent software and hardware versions of long-standing IOS manufacturers are suitable for fabricating complete arch restoration.
摘要：
目的：本研究通过虚拟拟合方法比较了七种口内扫描仪（IOS）的准确性。
方法：用工业参考扫描仪（n=1）和Aoralscan3，EmeraldS，Helios600,Lumina,Mediti700Primescan,和Trios5IOS(每个n=12)。在每次IOS扫描上设计了两个完整的拱形固定框架，其厚度为70µm（组70）和90µm的内部水泥空间（组7020，边缘处另外20µm）。虚拟拟合方法包括使用模拟临床尝试的非穿透算法将框架设计叠加到参考扫描上。测量了内部和边际差距。精度由平均绝对误差(MAE)估计。
结果：在第70组中，Mediti700（43µm），Primescan(42µm),EmeraldS处于边际差距的最佳同质子集，其次是Lumina（67µm），Aoralscan3(70µm),和Trios5(70µm)，而Helios600（118µm）在第三个子集。根据利润率的MAE，Mediti700、Trios5和EmeraldS属于第一好的同质子集，其次是Primescan。Lumina和Helios600属于第三个子集，Aoralscan3在第四子集。在第7020组中，Lumina和Aoralscan3的边缘间隙显着减小，而EmeraldS和Aoralscan3的MAE显着降低。IOS的等级与内部差距相似。
结论：翡翠，Mediti700Primescan,和Trios5满足固定牙载完整牙弓修复的边缘和内部配合标准。在设计过程中增加水泥空间可以增强修复配合。
结论：虚拟配合对准方法可有效评估不同口内扫描仪的准确性，为区分它们提供有价值的临床指导。长期IOS制造商的最新软件和硬件版本适用于制造完整的拱形修复。
方法：用工业参考扫描仪（n=1）和Aoralscan3，EmeraldS，Helios600,Lumina,Mediti700Primescan,和Trios5IOS(每个n=12)。在每次IOS扫描上设计了两个完整的拱形固定框架，其厚度为70µm（组70）和90µm的内部水泥空间（组7020，边缘处另外20µm）。虚拟拟合方法包括使用模拟临床尝试的非穿透算法将框架设计叠加到参考扫描上。测量了内部和边际差距。精度由平均绝对误差(MAE)估计。
结果：在第70组中，Mediti700（43µm），Primescan(42µm),EmeraldS处于边际差距的最佳同质子集，其次是Lumina（67µm），Aoralscan3(70µm),和Trios5(70µm)，而Helios600（118µm）在第三个子集。根据利润率的MAE，Mediti700、Trios5和EmeraldS属于第一好的同质子集，其次是Primescan。Lumina和Helios600属于第三个子集，Aoralscan3在第四子集。在第7020组中，Lumina和Aoralscan3的边缘间隙显着减小，而EmeraldS和Aoralscan3的MAE显着降低。IOS的等级与内部差距相似。
结论：翡翠，Mediti700Primescan,和Trios5满足固定牙载完整牙弓修复的边缘和内部配合标准。在设计过程中增加水泥空间可以增强修复配合。
结论：虚拟配合对准方法可有效评估不同口内扫描仪的准确性，为区分它们提供有价值的临床指导。长期IOS制造商的最新软件和硬件版本适用于制造完整的拱形修复。
