The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of four commercially available intraoral scanners (IOSs) on scanning different substrates that existed in the adjacent proximal contact area.
Four IOSs (TRIOS 4, TRIOS 3, Primescan, Omnicam) were used for scanning the intact enamel surface of a molar tooth, and six restorative materials (zirconia, lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, composite resin, hybrid ceramic, feldspathic ceramic, metal) that were located at the adjacent proximal contact area of the same tooth. Reference scans were obtained using an extraoral scanner (inEos X5). A 3-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Control X) was used to compare the reference and tested scans. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni correction was performed for statistical analyses (α=.05).
TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4 showed higher trueness than Primescan, and Primescan showed higher trueness than Omnicam (p .05). For the metal, TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4 showed higher trueness than Primescan and Omnicam, while Omnicam showed lower trueness among all scanners. For the hybrid ceramic, TRIOS 3 showed higher trueness than Omnicam (p<0.001). For the enamel, TRIOS 3 showed higher trueness than Primescan and Omnicam (p<0.001).
The trueness of IOSs can be affected by the substrates that exist in the proximal contact area. Amongst all, the metal substrate affected most the trueness of the IOSs.
The clinician should decide on the impression system, taking into account that the IOS and the surfaces to be scanned affect the trueness of the digital data. The deviation of the digital impression would be high in the presence of a metal restoration on the adjacent proximal surface.

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.