Trueness evaluation of three intraoral scanners for the recording of maximal intercuspal position.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES This clinical study aimed to assess the trueness of three intraoral scanners for the recor-ding of the maximal intercuspal position (MIP) to provide a reference for clinical practice. METHODS Ten participants with good occlusal relationship and healthy temporomandibular joint were recruited. For the control group, facebow transferring procedures were performed, and bite registrations at the MIP were used to transfer maxillary and mandibular casts to a mechanical articulator, which were then scanned with a laboratory scanner to obtain digital cast data. For the experimental groups, three intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Carestream 3600, and Aoralscan 3) were used to obtain digital casts of the participants at the MIP following the scanning workflows endorsed by the corresponding manufacturers. Subsequently, measurement points were marked on the control group's digital casts at the central incisors, canines, and first molars, and corresponding distances between these points on the maxillary and mandibular casts were measured to calculate the sum of measured distances (DA). Distances between measurement points in the incisor (DI), canine (DC), and first molar (DM) regions were also calculated. The control group's maxillary and mandibular digital casts with the added measurement points were aligned with the experimental group's casts, and DA, DI, DC, and DM values of the aligned control casts were determined. Statistical analysis was performed on DA, DI, DC, and DM obtained from both the control and experimental groups to evaluate the trueness of the three intraoral scanners for the recording of MIP. RESULTS In the control group, DA, DI, DC, and DM values were (39.58±6.40), (13.64±3.58), (14.91±2.85), and (11.03±1.56) mm. The Trios 3 group had values of (38.99±6.60), (13.42±3.66), (14.55±2.87), and (11.03±1.69) mm. The Carestream 3600 group showed values of (38.57±6.36), (13.56±3.68), (14.45±2.85), and (10.55±1.41) mm, while the Aoralscan 3 group had values of (38.16±5.69), (13.03±3.54), (14.23±2.59), and (10.90±1.54) mm. Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups for overall deviation DA (P=0.96), as well as local deviations DI (P=0.98), DC (P=0.96), and DM (P=0.89). CONCLUSIONS With standardized scanning protocols, the three intraoral scanners demonstrated comparable trueness to traditional methods in recording MIP, fulfilling clinical requirements.