Background: Accuracy of optical impressions—defined by the intraoral scanner (IOS)’s trueness and precision per International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards—is influenced by both operator- and patient-related factors. Thus, this in vitro study aimed to (1) evaluate how scanning distance affects the accuracy of three different intraoral scanners (IOSs), and (2) identify the optimal scanning distance for each scanner. Methods: A maxillary arch model was obtained using polyvinyl siloxane impression material and poured with Type IV stone (Octa-rock royal
®, Kulzer, Germany). Using three different types of IOSs—the trios 3 shape (TRIOS
® cart, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark); the Helios 500 (Eighteeth
®, Changzhou, China); and the Heron (3Disc
®, Herndon, VA 20170, USA)—ten scans were performed with each of the IOSs with five predetermined distances: 0 mm, 2.5 mm, 5 mm, 7.5 mm, and 10 mm. Spacers of varying heights were designed using Meshmixer version 3.5 (Autodesk, Inc., Mill Valley, CA, USA) and three-dimensional printed with the Form 2 printer (Formlabs, Somerville, MA, USA). The scanned data was processed using Geomagic Control X (Version 16.0.2.16496, 3D Systems, Wilsonville, OR, USA). Statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software (version 4.2.2), with significance set at α = 0.05. Results: Scanning distance significantly influenced scan accuracy for all three scanners. The 3Disc scanner (3Disc, Herndon, VA, USA) demonstrated the highest accuracy at a 7.5 mm distance, while both the Helios 500 (Eighteeth, Changzhou, China) and Trios 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) scanners achieved their best accuracy at a 5 mm distance, as indicated by the lowest root mean square (RMS) values (
p < 0.05). Conclusions: To conclude, each IOS has an optimal scanning distance for best accuracy. Trios 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) outperformed the others in both trueness and precision. Future studies should examine these effects under full-arch and clinical conditions.
Full article