Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative analysis finds Medit i700 offers reliable accuracy for molar scans, implying improved digital dentistry outcomes.
Aim: This study evaluates the digital accuracy of posterior implant scans and contralateral molar tooth scans obtained with three different intraoral scanners. Materials and Methods: Using a transfer analog, a Frasaco maxillary model was prepared with a Megagen scan body positioned in the left maxillary molar region. An experienced operator (n = 10) performed all scans with an industrial optical reference scanner and intraoral scanners (Medit i700, TRIOS 3, and TRIOS 5). Scan accuracy was assessed using Geomagic Control X software based on 3D trueness and precision accuracy analysis. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests were applied to identify statistically significant differences in trueness and precision (α = 0.05). Results: In the implant region, TRIOS 5 demonstrated significantly different 3D trueness results and was more successful than TRIOS 3. Medit i700 yielded results comparable to those of TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 5 (p = 0.011). TRIOS 5 exhibited less successful 3D trueness results than the other scanners in the molar region (p = 0.001). No 3D precision differences were observed among intraoral scanners in the implant region (p = 0.561). Medit i700 presented the most favorable precision results in the molar region (p = 0.01). Conclusions: TRIOS 5 supports high impression accuracy and passive fit, while Medit i700 offers more reliable accuracy for contralateral molar scans, which can affect the digital occlusal record.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buyukhatipoglu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: