Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
To update the available literature on the accuracy of conventional and digital full-arch impressions using the latest hardware and software, participants of different age groups and dental status were investigated. An established reference aid-based method was applied to analyze five intraoral scanners (IOS) CS 3800 (CS), iTero Element 5D (IT), Medit i700 (ME), Primescan (PS), and Trios 4 (TR), and one conventional polyether impression (CVI). Forty-five participants were classified into three groups: Age 27.3 ± 2.7 years fully dentate, 60.6 ± 8.1 years fully dentate, and 65.7 ± 6.2 years partially edentulous. The IOS datasets were investigated using three-dimensional software (GOM Inspect), and plaster casts of CVI were analyzed using a co-ordinate measurement machine. The deviations of the reference aid to impressions were determined. No significant differences in age between the three groups were observed by the IOS in terms of trueness (p < 0.05). These findings were confirmed for precision, except for TR. In contrast to CS (mean ± standard deviation 98.9 ± 62.1 µm) and IT (89.0 ± 91.0 µm), TR (58.3 ± 66.8 µm), ME (57.9 ± 66.7 µm), and PS (55.5 ± 48.7 µm) did not show significant differences than those of CVI (34.8 ± 29.6 µm) in overall view. Within the study, the latest IOSs still showed limitations in the accuracy of full-arch impressions. However, they seemed to be unaffected by age and fully dentate or partially edentulous dentitions with small gaps.
Schlenz et al. (Tue,) studied this question.