What does this research mean for the field?

Single-tooth cavity preparation geometry significantly affects the trueness of intraoral scanners in a scanner-dependent manner, with simpler and more optically accessible geometries generally yielding higher accuracy. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To evaluate the trueness and descriptively assess the precision of two intraoral scanner systems across various single-tooth crown preparation geometries.

September 5, 2026Journal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistryOpen Access

Effect of Preparation Design on the Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners: A Comparative Analysis Across Two IOS Systems

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

ŞSŞekibe Hüma Sanioğlu FKFatma Emine Karol OHOsman Tolga Harorlı

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

In vitro study shows tooth preparation geometry alters intraoral scanner trueness depending on scanner hardware, highlighting that simpler cavity designs yield more accurate digital impressions.

Key Points

To evaluate the trueness and descriptively assess the precision of two intraoral scanner systems across various single-tooth crown preparation geometries.
Scanned a maxillary phantom model featuring nine crown preparation designs and one unprepared control using Trios 5 and Primescan systems (five scans per combination).
Compared digital models to an industrial reference scan (ATOS Q) using root mean square (RMS) deviation after best-fit alignment, evaluating trueness with two-way ANOVA and precision via interquartile ranges.
Trueness RMS values ranged from 0.0247 mm for a partial occlusal veneer scanned with Trios 5 to 0.0623 mm for an anterior veneer scanned with Primescan.
Preparation design significantly affected trueness (F(9, 80) = 9.26, p < 0.001) with a significant design-by-scanner interaction (F(9, 80) = 4.84, p < 0.001), whereas main scanner type differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.056).

Cite This Study

Sanioğlu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9bd4536b95aff0620ebe45 https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70263

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 5, 2026Journal of Esthetic and Restorative DentistryOpen Access

Effect of Preparation Design on the Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners: A Comparative Analysis Across Two IOS Systems

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

ŞSŞekibe Hüma Sanioğlu FKFatma Emine Karol OHOsman Tolga Harorlı

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

In vitro study shows tooth preparation geometry alters intraoral scanner trueness depending on scanner hardware, highlighting that simpler cavity designs yield more accurate digital impressions.

Key Points

To evaluate the trueness and descriptively assess the precision of two intraoral scanner systems across various single-tooth crown preparation geometries.
Scanned a maxillary phantom model featuring nine crown preparation designs and one unprepared control using Trios 5 and Primescan systems (five scans per combination).
Compared digital models to an industrial reference scan (ATOS Q) using root mean square (RMS) deviation after best-fit alignment, evaluating trueness with two-way ANOVA and precision via interquartile ranges.
Trueness RMS values ranged from 0.0247 mm for a partial occlusal veneer scanned with Trios 5 to 0.0623 mm for an anterior veneer scanned with Primescan.
Preparation design significantly affected trueness (F(9, 80) = 9.26, p < 0.001) with a significant design-by-scanner interaction (F(9, 80) = 4.84, p < 0.001), whereas main scanner type differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.056).

Cite This Study

Sanioğlu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9bd4536b95aff0620ebe45 https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70263

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark