In vivo analysis shows TRIOS 3 outperforms Planmeca for full-arch precision, indicating reliable performance assessment.
Background: The precision of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is a key factor in ensuring the reliability of digital impressions, particularly in full-arch workflows. Although proprietary metrology tools are generally employed for scanner validation, open-source platforms could provide a cost-effective alternative for clinical research. Methods: This in vivo study compared the precision of two IOSs—3Shape TRIOS 3 and Planmeca Emerald S—using an open-source analytical workflow based on Autodesk Meshmixer and CloudCompare. A single healthy subject underwent five consecutive full-arch scans per device. Digital models were trimmed, aligned by manual landmarking and iterative closest-point refinement, and analyzed at six deviation thresholds (<0.01 mm to <0.4 mm). The percentage of surface points within clinically acceptable limits (<0.3 mm) was compared using paired t-tests. Results: TRIOS 3 exhibited significantly higher repeatability than Planmeca Emerald S (p < 0.001). At the <0.3 mm threshold, 99.3% ± 0.4% of points were within tolerance for TRIOS 3 versus 92.9% ± 6.8% for Planmeca. At the <0.1 mm threshold, values were 89.6% ± 5.7% and 47.3% ± 13.7%, respectively. Colorimetric deviation maps confirmed greater spatial consistency of TRIOS 3, particularly in posterior regions. Conclusions: Both scanners achieved clinically acceptable precision for full-arch impressions; however, TRIOS 3 demonstrated superior repeatability and lower variability. The proposed open-source workflow proved feasible and reliable, offering an accessible and reproducible method for IOS performance assessment in clinical settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salmeri et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: