Logo-ajdr

Submitted: 22 Sep 2024
Revision: 23 Nov 2025
Accepted: 11 Jan 2026
ePublished: 29 Mar 2026
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

Avicenna J Dent Res. 2026;18(1): 52-56.
doi: 10.34172/ajdr.2049
  Abstract View: 3
  PDF Download: 3

Original Article

Comparison of the Accuracy of Five Intraoral Scanners

Siavash Bagheri Shirvan 1 ORCID logo, Hamidreza Rajati Haghi 2, Alireza Peighon 1, Davood Nodehi 2* ORCID logo

1 Student Research Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
2 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Davood Nodehi, Email: Nodehid@mums.ac.ir

Abstract

Introduction: In recent years, the use of digital techniques such as computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) has increased significantly in dentistry This study aimed to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of five intraoral scanners (IOSs).

Methods: A mandibular dental model with lower first molar teeth was scanned 12 times with several IOSs, including Medit i500, Medit i700, Carestream 3600, 3Shape 3SHAPE 3, and Einscan SE. In addition, the reference dataset was obtained using an Identica T500 laboratory scanner. Then, all intraoral scans were superimposed onto the reference model using EXOCAD software to assess trueness, while precision was determined by comparing the 12 repeated scans for each scanner.

Results: Significant differences in precision were observed only in the mesial region of the preparation (P=0.004). Pairwise comparisons revealed that the Carestream 3600 had significantly lower precision than the Medit i700 (P=0.04), Medit i500 (P=0.03), or 3Shape 3SHAPE 3 (P=0.01). Moreover, trueness significantly differed among scanners in the lingual (P=0.02), buccal (P=0.02), and mesial (P<0.01) regions. The Medit i700 displayed significantly lower trueness in the mesial area compared to the Carestream 3600 and Shining scanners (P=0.021 and P=0.001, respectively).

Conclusion: Among the tested scanners, the 3Shape 3SHAPE 3 demonstrated the highest precision, while the Einscan SE showed superior trueness across all evaluated regions.



Please cite this article as follows: Bagheri Shirvan S, Rajati Haghi H, Peighon A, Nodehi D. Comparison of the accuracy of five intraoral scanners. Avicenna J Dent Res 2026;18(1):52-56. doi:10.34172/ajdr.2049
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 4

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 3

Your browser does not support the canvas element.