Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of eight different extraoral laboratory scanners using three-dimensional (3D) analysis method.MethodAn arch-shaped master model was designed with a computer software (Rapidform XOR2) and manufactured with a 3D printer (Projet 3510 MP). Then the master model was digitized with an industrial 3D scanner (ATOS Core 200). With each scanner master model was scanned ten times and stereolithography (.stl) data were imported into 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control). Accuracy was determined with evaluating trueness and precision.ResultsTrueness of the scanners were 27.5 μm for 7 series; 30.9 μm for D640; 26.8 μm for D710; 33.3 μm for Activity 102; 32.4 μm for Tizian Smart-Scan; 21.6 μm for NeWay; 26.1 μm for inEOS X5 and 17,47 μm for D2000. 28.2 μm for laser; 32.9 μm for white light and 21.7 μm for blue light scanners. Significant differences were found between scanners (p < .001), (p < .001). Precision of the scanners were 30.1 μm for 7 series; 31.7 μm for D640; 26.3 μm for D710; 22.7 μm for Activity 102; 25.1 μm for Tizian Smart-Scan; 15.7 μm for NeWay; 26.1 μm for inEOS X5; 16.6 μm for D2000. 29.2 μm for laser; 24.4 μm for white light and 19.2 μm for blue light scanners. Significant differences were found between scanners (p < .001), (p = .027).ConclusionsThe systems that had the best combination of trueness and precision for complete-arch scanning were D2000 and NeWay. Scanners using blue-light showed more accurate results than the white-light and laser scanners.