基于口内扫描的三维数字化牙列模型咬合匹配评价分析

目的    通过评价咬合接触面积及咬合接触点的分布,分析3个品牌口内扫描仪扫描牙列模型颊侧部分获取数字化咬合记录的可靠性。方法    使用3个品牌口内扫描仪（TRIOS、CS3600、CEREC Omnicam）分别扫描10副上下颌牙列模型后,通过扫描颊侧部分获得具有牙尖交错位三维空间位置关系的上下颌牙列数字化模型,以口外扫描仓获得的数字化模型为对照组,应用逆向工程软件的偏差分析功能显示下颌牙列模型上的咬合接触图像,测量上下颌间的咬合接触面积、咬合接触点的分布,并运用SAS统计学软件比较3个品牌口内扫描仪的咬合关系精确度。结果　全牙列咬合接触面积：TRIOS组为（15.160 ± 8.145）mm2,CEREC组为（13.153 ± 5.080）mm2,CS3600组为（27.509 ± 20.847）mm2,对照组为（23.194 ± 18.194）mm2;3个口内扫描仪组分别与对照组比较,差异均无统计学意义（P > 0.05）;CS3600组分别与TRIOS组和CEREC组比较,差异均有统计学意义（均P < 0.05）;而TRIOS组与CEREC组之间的差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。咬合接触面积分布统计图显示,3个品牌口内扫描仪所得的面积分布趋势基本相同,咬合接触面积磨牙区＞前磨牙区＞前牙区。咬合接触点分布统计图显示,3个品牌口内扫描仪全牙列咬合接触点分布呈左右对称,接触点数少于对照组;位于中央窝和边缘嵴处的接触点在口内扫描仪与对照组之间出现的重复率较高。结论    3个品牌口内扫描仪通过颊侧扫描记录上下颌位置关系,得到数字化咬合记录。在全牙列咬合接触面积方面,3个口内扫描仪均与口外扫描仓无明显差异;咬合接触面积的主要差异在于磨牙区,TRIOS和CEREC Omnicam 相比CS3600的磨牙区咬合接触面积更接近口外扫描仓。咬合接触点位于中央窝和边缘嵴处记录的准确性要高于颊舌尖斜面。     

五种口内扫描仪模型扫描精度对比及扫描质量评估

目的：分析比较5种不同型号的口内扫描仪扫描单颌全牙列石膏模型的扫描精度，并评估扫描质量，为临床应用提供参考，并为今后进一步提升国产口内扫描仪性能提供依据。方法：5种型号口内扫描仪（3 Shape Trios3、iTero Element 1、FusionScanner、Aoralscan2、Medit i500）扫描单颌全牙列石膏模型，获得三维扫描数据，每组重复5次，作为实验组数据。利用高精度台式扫描仪（云甲UP560）获取数字化模型，作为真值组数据，通过分析软件Geomagic Studio14进行“最佳拟合对齐”后进行偏差分析真值组和实验组数据，并评估扫描数据质量指标、对比扫描精度。将全牙列模型按单牙冠进行分割，得到14颗单牙冠模体，同样进行扫描精度的评价。扫描精度由精密度和正确度进行评价。精密度通过计算同一型号仪器重复扫描的数据与真值数据的偏差分析所得的标准差结果进行评价；正确度通过与真值数据比较的偏差结果的均值进行评价，对不同组间的数据进行统计学分析。实验组和真值组间、以及实验组间的平均距离值与均方根（RMS）的均值和标准差作为计量型指标。各组数据经正态性检验，方差齐性检验后，...     

扫描方式对全冠预备体终止线扫描正确度的影响

目的通过分析扫描方式对全冠预备体终止线扫描正确度的影响, 探索提高全冠预备体终止线局部区域扫描正确度的方法。方法选择上颌标准树脂牙列模型1个, 于右上第一磨牙上制备全冠预备体, 作为标准参照模型, 以牙颌模型扫描仪扫描获得的数据作为参考数据。分别采用主动三角测量原理的口内扫描仪A(CERECOmnicam)和共聚焦显微成像原理的口内扫描仪B(3ShapeTRIOS)扫描全冠预备体, 按照扫描方式分为3组:平移式扫描组、面波浪式扫描组和颊舌面波浪式扫描组。每组均重复扫描6次, 数据导入GeomagicStudio2013软件, 分别提取全冠预备体终止线整体以及近中、远中、颊侧、舌侧图像数据, 与参考数据进行三维偏差分析, 以均方根误差(root-mean-squareerror, RMSE)作为扫描正确度的评价指标, RMSE值越小, 扫描正确度越大。采用单因素方差分析进行组间比较。结果对于平移式扫描组, 口内扫描仪B终止线整体RMSE值[(35±6)μm]显著小于口内扫描仪A[(44±7)μm](P<0.05)。对于口内扫描仪A, 面波浪式扫描组终止线近中和远中RMSE值[分别为...     

口内扫描系统虚拟咬合记录准确性的体外研究

目的:研究缺牙区域的跨度对于口内扫描系统虚拟咬合记录(virtual interocclusal record,VIR)准确性的影响.方法:从标准模型中复制了超硬石膏模型,然后分成5个研究组,A组:单侧1个游离后牙缺失;B组:单侧2个游离后牙缺失;C组:单侧3个游离后牙缺失;D组:单侧4个游离后牙缺失;E组:完整牙列组...     

3种口内扫描仪用于咬合关系记录的准确度研究

目的 探究3种口内扫描仪用于获取最大牙尖交错位(MIP)咬合关系的准确度,为临床实践提供参考。方法 招募10名上下颌牙列完整、咬合关系正常的受试者。对照组采用面弓转移和咬合记录将位于MIP的上下颌石膏模型固定在架上,并使用桌面扫描仪对固定的模型进行扫描以获得数字化模型数据;实验组分别使用Trios 3、Carestream 3600以及Aoralscan 3口内扫描仪对受试者进行口内扫描以获取位于MIP时上下颌口扫模型数据。在对照组数字化模型的上下颌双侧中切牙、尖牙和第一磨牙上设置测量点并测量上下颌对应同名牙上测量点之间的距离,获得测量的距离之和D_A,同时计算模型中切牙区、尖牙区以及第一磨牙区的测量点间距离之和,分别记为D_I、D_C、D_M。将添加测量点的对照组上下颌模型分别与实验组上下颌口扫模型进行精确匹配,计算匹配后对照组模型的D_A、D_I、D_C和D_M。对对照组和实验组获得的D_A、D     

口内扫描仪用于长牙列的准确性及重复性研究

目的 采用新的区段划分法研究口内扫描仪扫描长牙列的重复性及准确性。方法 8位志愿者制取硅橡胶印模,灌注超硬石膏模型,用窗口扫描仪扫描模型获得虚拟模型Ri,口内扫描仪扫描模型4次得到虚拟模型TiA、TiB、TiC、TiD。将窗口扫描数据模型Ri和口内扫描数据模型TiA的牙列分成从右到左4个区段：右侧后牙,右侧前牙,左侧前牙和左侧后牙,按顺序记为第一、第二、第三、第四区段。对两组模型的第一区段进行全局注册,再依次对两组光学扫描牙列的4个区段行三维偏差分析; Ri与TiB、TiC、TiD之间也进行相同比较。口内扫描数据TiA、TiB、TiC、TiD两两之间进行同样操作以研究口内扫描仪的重复性。结果 准确性研究中4个区段虚拟模型偏差的均值按上述顺序依次为： （0.017±0.004）mm、（0.050±0.015）mm、（0.109±0.040）mm和（0.193±0.067）mm,任意两个区段的虚拟模型偏差均存在差异（P<0.05）。重复性研究中4个区段的虚拟模型偏差均值依次为： （0.011±0.008）mm、（0.027±0.012）mm、（0.064±0.038）mm和（0.127±0.077）mm,4个区段两两之间的虚拟模型偏差差异均具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 口内扫描仪用于长牙列扫描时,其准确性和重复性均有所欠缺。     

老年人动态咬合下的接触特征的初步研究

目的：通过研究老年人多种颌位的咬合观察及前伸咬合运动中前牙的接触模式与牙弓形状的关系,探讨老年人的动态咬合下的接触特征,为临床修复重建提供理论依据。方法：本研究共86例老年患者,通过口内视诊确定牙弓形态。采用厚度为8um的Bausch咬合测试膜检查下颌各个非正中颌位的接触：侧方移动至包括下颌0.5mm、尖对尖接触位置及前伸移动至前牙切对切接触位置。结果：下颌侧方移动至0.5mm时,30.2%受试者为双侧组牙功能,20.1%为混合尖牙保护和组牙功能。下颌侧方移动至尖对尖接触位置时,45.3%的受试者为双侧尖牙保护,17.4%为双侧组牙功能。下颌向前滑动至上、下前牙切对切接触位置时,80.2%的受试者前牙存在接触,后牙分离。前牙的牙合接触模式与牙列形状的关系：71.4%方圆型牙弓受试者是I型前牙接触模式;63.9%尖圆型牙弓受试者为II型前牙接触模式;对于卵圆型牙弓受试者,前牙接触模式I型和II型均占40%。结论：老年患者具有特殊的动态接触特征。前伸咬合运动中前牙的接触模式与牙弓形状关系密切,修复重建需要考虑这种关系。     

口内数字化扫描仪辅助重建下颌第一磨牙髓腔固位冠修复三维有限元模型研究

目的    将口内数字化扫描仪创新性应用于三维有限元研究,探索出一种更为准确高效的牙体及其修复体的有限元建模方式。方法    利用Trios口内数字化扫描仪及锥形束CT（CBCT）采集志愿者口内预备后牙体的原始图像数据,然后采用计算机辅助设计（CAD）系统设计制作修复体表面模型,于有限元软件Mimics10.0中建立牙体表面模型,最终在ANSYS 14.0软件中完成两部分模型的整合得到实体模型。结果　本研究基于口内扫描仪及CBCT数据建立了真实而准确的下颌第一磨牙髓腔固位冠修复的三维有限元模型,共有单元格数25 776,节点数44 728,有限元模型与天然牙体同一层面近远中径及颊舌径所测得偏差值仅为-0.28%和-0.27%,小于等于文献记载传统方式有限元建模的偏差值-0.28%。结论　通过将口内数字化扫描仪引入于三维有限元研究,探索出了一种创新性建模方法,可大为简化传统建模步骤,有效减少建模过程中的数据损失及人为因素所造成的误差。本研究所建模型与口内天然牙的几何相似度极高,精确度和通用性均优于传统建模方式,为后续的有限元分析（FEA）研究奠定了坚实基础。     

口内数字化印模扫描重复性的研究

目的：通过研究口内数字化扫描仪多次扫描的重复性来评价其扫描精度。方法：根据原始研究模型上牙备后基牙的分布不同分为5小组（1.右侧上颌中切牙为牙备后形态,余牙完整;2.右侧上颌第一磨牙为牙备后形态,余牙完整;3.右侧上颌中切牙和尖牙为牙备后形态,上颌侧切牙缺失,余牙完整;4.右侧上颌7颗牙齿为牙备后形态,左半侧完整;5.上颌全部牙齿为牙备后形态）。实验组中,每一小组的研究模型均用TRIOS口内扫描仪10次;对照组中,每一小组的研究模型先分别翻制10副石膏模型,再用3Shape口外扫描仪扫描。实验组和对照组分别得到扫描生成的50个STL三维图像文件,将总共100个STL文件通过Geomagic Studio 12软件进行处理和分析来评价两组扫描的重复性和精度。结果：实验组（口内组）3D标准偏差分别是第1小组：13.33μm,第2小组：7.0μm,第3小组：16.33μm,第4小组：41.56μm,第5小组：88.44μm。对照组的3D标准偏差分别是第1小组：14.89μm,第2小组：8.67μm,第3小组：24.33μm,第4小组：14.22μm,第5小组：12.67μm。实验组和对照组的3D标准偏差在第2,3,4,5小组中有统计学差异（P〈0.05）。结论：口内数字化印模扫描精度随着牙弓扫描范围增大而降低,其在扫描范围小于半个牙弓时表现出的精度符合临床要求;而口外台式扫描仪在扫描任意范围牙弓时均表现出较好的精度。     

牙位对不同咬合类型的下颌牙根尖应力影响的光弹实验研究

目的：探讨牙位的变化对下颌各牙根尖主应力大小及方向的影响进行分析。方法：采用透明环氧树脂复制以相同牙排列而成的正常He、深覆He、重度磨耗He、单侧部分后牙反He、单侧上颌第三磨牙伸长、单侧下颌第三磨牙伸长、单侧部分后牙缺失7种不同咬合类型的下颌模型，2．0kg力垂直加载后，投影式光弹仪上观测各牙根尖主应力的大小与方向。结果：在对称性咬合，牙位的变化对各牙的根尖主应力方向无影响。而在不对称性咬合，牙位的变化对前牙区近远中向应力及全牙列的根尖主应力颊舌向倾角都有明显影响。另外，随牙位的变化根尖主应力的大小也会发生显著变化，而且这种差异主要来自于不对称性咬合类型。结论：牙在下颌骨上相对位置的变化会对其根尖主应力大小及方向产生一定的影响，而且其影响程度还会受到咬合对称性等因素的影响。     

In-vitro evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated using digital scanning technologies

PURPOSEThis study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations that were designed by using the data obtained with the aid of intraoral and laboratory scanners.MATERIALS AND METHODSFor the fabrication of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations using impressions taken from the maxillary master cast, plaster cast was created and scanned in laboratory scanners (InEos X5 and D900L). The main cast was also scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam [OMNI], Primescan [PS], Trios 3 [T3], Trios 4 [T4]) (n = 12 per group). Zirconia fixed partial dentures were virtually designed, produced from presintered block, and subsequently sintered. Marginal and internal discrepancy values (in µm) were measured by using silicone replica method under stereomicroscope. Data were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests (P<.05).RESULTSIn terms of marginal adaptation, the measurements on the canine tooth indicated better performance with intraoral scanners than those in laboratory scanners, but there was no difference among intraoral scanners (P<.05). In the premolar tooth, PS had the lowest marginal (86.9 ± 19.2 µm) and axial (92.4 ± 14.8 µm), and T4 had the lowest axio-occlusal (89.4 ± 15.6 µm) and occlusal (89.1 ± 13.9 µm) discrepancy value. In both canine and premolar teeth, the D900L was found to be the most marginally and internally inconsistent scanner.CONCLUSIONWithin the limits of the study, marginal and internal discrepancy values were generally lower in intraoral scanners than in laboratory scanners. Marginal discrepancy values of scanners were clinically acceptable (< 120 µm), except D900L.     

Effect of the presence of orthodontic brackets on intraoral scans

ObjectivesThe need for intraoral scanning in the presence of brackets has increased for monitoring tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of orthodontic brackets bonded to tooth surfaces on intraoral scans.Materials and MethodsIntraoral scans were performed in 30 patients using both iTero and Trios scanners before and after bonding of the brackets. The two sets of intraoral scans of each patient and intraoral scans with and without brackets were superimposed using a best-fit algorithm, and three-dimensional (3D) surface analysis was performed. In each superimposition, discrepancies in the 3D axes and arch-width measurements in the incisor and molar regions were compared. In addition, the range of distortion around the brackets was evaluated on the cross sections of each superimposition.ResultsThe overall discrepancies between the intraoral scans with and without brackets were within 0.30 mm. The arch-width discrepancies in the molar region were greater than those in the incisor region, but the differences were not statistically significant (P = .972 for iTero; P = .960 for Trios). The cross sections of the superimposed intraoral scans with and without brackets showed that the deviations were within 0.40 mm in the horizontal section and within 0.35 mm in the vertical section around the brackets.ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that the accuracy of intraoral scans, even in the presence of brackets, is clinically acceptable, and the regions beyond 0.50 mm around the brackets should be used for superimposition on images without brackets.     

A novel reference model for dental scanning system evaluation: analysis of five intraoral scanners

PURPOSEThe aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of five intraoral scanners (IOS) using a novel reference model for standardized performance evaluation.MATERIALS AND METHODSFive IOSs (Medit i500, Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4) were used to digitize the reference model, which represented a simplified full-arch situation with four abutment teeth. Each IOS was used five times by an experienced operator, resulting in 25 STL (Standard Tessellation Language) files. STL data were imported into 3D software (Final Surface^®) and examined for inter- and intra-group analyses. Deviations in the parameter matching error were calculated. ANOVA F-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were applied for inter-group comparisons (α = .05); and the coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for intra-group comparisons (in % ± SD).RESULTSPrimescan (matching error value: 0.015), Trios 3 (0.016), and Trios 4 (0.018) revealed comparable results with significantly higher accuracy compared to Medit i500 (0.035) and Omnicam (0.028) (P < .001). For intra-group comparison, Trios 4 demonstrated the most homogenous results (CV 15.8%).CONCLUSIONThe novel reference model investigated in this study can be used to assess the performance of dental scanning technologies in the daily routine setting and in research settings.     

Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions

Statement of problem

Clinical trials are needed to evaluate digital and conventional technologies for providing fixed partial dentures.

Precision of maxillo-mandibular registration with intraoral scanners in vitro

PurposeTo compare the precision of maxillo-mandibular registration and resulting full arch occlusion produced by three intraoral scanners in vitro.MethodsSix dental models (groups A–F) were scanned five times with intraoral scanners (CEREC, TRIOS, PLANMECA), producing both full arch and two buccal maxillo-mandibular scans. Total surface area of contact points (defined as regions within 0.1 mm and all mesh penetrations) was measured, and the distances between four pairs of key points were compared, each two in the posterior and anterior.ResultsTotal surface area of contact points varied significantly among scanners across all groups. CEREC produced the smallest contact surface areas (5.7–25.3 mm²), while PLANMECA tended to produce the largest areas in each group (22.2–60.2 mm²). Precision of scanners, as measured by the 95% CI range, varied from 0.1–0.9 mm for posterior key points. For anterior key points the 95% CI range was smaller, particularly when multiple posterior teeth were still present (0.04–0.42 mm). With progressive loss of posterior units (groups D–F), differences in the anterior occlusion among scanners became significant in five out of six groups (D–F left canines and D, F right canines, p < 0.05).ConclusionsMaxillo-mandibular registrations from three intraoral scanners created significantly different surface areas of occlusal contact. Posterior occlusions revealed lower precision for all scanners than anterior. CEREC tended towards incorrect posterior open bites, whilst TRIOS was most consistent in reproducing occluding units.     

Effect of the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch on the accuracy of scanners

PURPOSEThe present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a desktop scanner and intraoral scanners based on the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch.MATERIALS AND METHODSSeven reference models were fabricated based on the volumetric dimensions of complete arch (70%, 80%, 90%, 100%, 110%, 120%, and 130%). The reference models were digitized using an industrial scanner (Solutionix C500; MEDIT) for the fabrication of a computer-aided design (CAD) reference model (CRM). The reference models were digitized using three intraoral scanners (CS3600, Trios3, and i500) and one desktop scanner (E1) to fabricate a CAD test model (CTM). CRM and CTM were then superimposed using inspection software, and 3D analysis was conducted. For statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance was used to verify the difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch and the accuracy based on the scanners, and the differences among the groups were analyzed using the Tukey HSD test as a post-hoc test (α=.05).RESULTSThe three different scanners showed a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P<.05), but the desktop scanner did not show a significant difference in accuracy based on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch (P=.808).CONCLUSIONThe accuracy of the intraoral scanners was dependent on the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch, but the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch had no effect on the accuracy of the desktop scanner. Additionally, depending on the type of intraoral scanners, the accuracy differed according to the volumetric dimensions of the complete arch.     

The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparative study

BackgroundAlthough intraoral scanners are known to have good accuracy in computer-aided impression making (CAIM), their effect on time efficiency is not. Little is known about the time required to make a digital impression. The purpose of the authors’ in vitro investigation was to evaluate the time efficiency of intraoral scanners.MethodsThe authors used three different intraoral scanners to digitize a single abutment (scenario 1), a short-span fixed dental prosthesis (scenario 2) and a full-arch prosthesis preparation (scenario 3). They measured the procedure durations for the several scenarios and compiled and contrasted the procedure durations for three conventional impression materials.ResultsThe mean total procedure durations for making digital impressions of scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were as much as 5 minutes 57 seconds, 6 minutes 57 seconds, and 20 minutes 55 seconds, respectively. Results showed statistically significant differences between all scanners (P < .05), except Lava (3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minn.) and iTero with foot pedal (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif.) for scenario 1, CEREC (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) and CEREC with foot pedal for scenario 2, and iTero and iTero with foot pedal for scenarios 2 and 3. The compiled procedure durations for making conventional impressions in scenarios 1 and 2 ranged between 18 minutes 15 seconds and 27 minutes 25 seconds; for scenario 3, they ranged between 21 minutes 25 seconds and 30 minutes 25 seconds.ConclusionsThe authors found that CAIM was significantly faster for all tested scenarios. This suggests that CAIM might be beneficial in establishing a more time-efficient work flow.Practical ImplicationsOn the basis of the results of this in vitro study, the authors found CAIM to be superior regarding time efficiency in comparison with conventional approaches and might accelerate the work flow of making impressions.     

不同咬合记录方式制作后牙单冠的咬合适合性研究

目的 评估不同咬合记录方式在后牙单冠修复体咬合适合性方面的差异。方法 选择10例拟后牙单冠修复的患者,利用5种不同的咬合记录方式分别制作5个单冠。实验分组：以Co组（Artex CR + O-Bite咬合记录）为参照,其他4种咬合记录方式为实验组,包括3s组（3Shape TRIOS 3静态咬合记录）和3d组（3Shape TRIOS 3动态咬合记录）、Ka组（KaVo ARCUS digma）、Pr组（Dentograf）。通过患者满意度评分,T-scan Ⅲ咬合记录分析仪记录咬合时间（occlusion time,OT）和咬合分离时间（disocclusion time,DT）及医师椅旁调牙合时间来评价单冠修复体咬合的适合性。结果 5种咬合记录方式在制作后牙单冠的患者满意度评分、ΔOT和ΔDT值以及医师椅旁调牙合时间上都没有统计学差异（P>0.05）。结论 后牙单冠制作时,多种结合下颌运动的咬合记录方式都可以取得良好的临床效果。     

Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners in full-arch scans.

Materials and methods

A representative model with 14 prepared abutments was digitized using an industrial scanner (reference scanner) as well as four intraoral scanners (iTero, CEREC AC Bluecam, Lava C.O.S., and Zfx IntraScan). Datasets obtained from different scans were loaded into 3D evaluation software, superimposed, and compared for accuracy. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented to compute differences within groups (precision) as well as comparisons with the reference scan (trueness). A level of statistical significance of p?<?0.05 was set.

Results

Mean trueness values ranged from 38 to 332.9 μm. Data analysis yielded statistically significant differences between CEREC AC Bluecam and other scanners as well as between Zfx IntraScan and Lava C.O.S. Mean precision values ranged from 37.9 to 99.1 μm. Statistically significant differences were found between CEREC AC Bluecam and Lava C.O.S., CEREC AC Bluecam and iTero, Zfx Intra Scan and Lava C.O.S., and Zfx Intra Scan and iTero (p?<?0.05).

Conclusions

Except for one intraoral scanner system, all tested systems showed a comparable level of accuracy for full-arch scans of prepared teeth. Further studies are needed to validate the accuracy of these scanners under clinical conditions.

Clinical relevance

Despite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations.