Heloísa Nelson Cavalcanti , Vinícius Ribeiro de Almeida Lázaro , Vinícius Merino da Silva , Silvio Augusto Bellini-Pereira , Guilherme Janson , Daniela Garib , José Fernando Castanha Henriques
{"title":"Accuracy and reliability comparison between different intraoral scanning devices in patients with permanent dentition: A prospective clinical study","authors":"Heloísa Nelson Cavalcanti , Vinícius Ribeiro de Almeida Lázaro , Vinícius Merino da Silva , Silvio Augusto Bellini-Pereira , Guilherme Janson , Daniela Garib , José Fernando Castanha Henriques","doi":"10.1016/j.ortho.2025.100983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study primarily aimed to compare the accuracy and secondarily the reliability of different intraoral scanning (IOS) devices using intra- and interarch linear measurements of three-dimensional digital dental models.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Digital dental models were divided into three groups based on their acquisition method: group T (GT) using the Trios® IOS, group P (GP) using the Panda® (IOS), and the control group (CG) consisting of plaster models digitized with the E3® desktop scanner. Two examiners measured the following variables using the OrthoAnalyzer® software: mesiodistal tooth width, clinical crown height, intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar distances, arch perimeter, arch length, overjet and overbite. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman test. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the analysis of variance (Anova) followed by Tukey tests (<em>P</em> <!--><<!--> <!-->0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The sample consisted of 25 volunteers (11 men, 14 women) with a mean age of 29.6<!--> <!-->years. Overall, the measurements of digital models obtained from the Trios®, Panda® and the E3® desktop scanner were comparable. For intermolar distance, the mean and standard deviation were as follows: GT (52.4<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->3.55), GP (52.6<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->3.56), and CG (52.1<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->3.96) with <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.896 for the maxillary arch, and GT (45.8<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->3.87), GP (46.3<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->4.40), and CG (46.3<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->4.08), with <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.848 for the mandibular arch. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding this and other variables. Measurements showed good to excellent reliability for both Trios® and Panda® IOS.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The three scanning devices Trios®, Panda® and E3® presented similar and adequate accuracy and reliability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45449,"journal":{"name":"International Orthodontics","volume":"23 2","pages":"Article 100983"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S176172272500018X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
This study primarily aimed to compare the accuracy and secondarily the reliability of different intraoral scanning (IOS) devices using intra- and interarch linear measurements of three-dimensional digital dental models.
Methods
Digital dental models were divided into three groups based on their acquisition method: group T (GT) using the Trios® IOS, group P (GP) using the Panda® (IOS), and the control group (CG) consisting of plaster models digitized with the E3® desktop scanner. Two examiners measured the following variables using the OrthoAnalyzer® software: mesiodistal tooth width, clinical crown height, intercanine, interpremolar and intermolar distances, arch perimeter, arch length, overjet and overbite. Intra- and inter-examiner reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman test. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the analysis of variance (Anova) followed by Tukey tests (P < 0.05).
Results
The sample consisted of 25 volunteers (11 men, 14 women) with a mean age of 29.6 years. Overall, the measurements of digital models obtained from the Trios®, Panda® and the E3® desktop scanner were comparable. For intermolar distance, the mean and standard deviation were as follows: GT (52.4 ± 3.55), GP (52.6 ± 3.56), and CG (52.1 ± 3.96) with P = 0.896 for the maxillary arch, and GT (45.8 ± 3.87), GP (46.3 ± 4.40), and CG (46.3 ± 4.08), with P = 0.848 for the mandibular arch. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding this and other variables. Measurements showed good to excellent reliability for both Trios® and Panda® IOS.
Conclusion
The three scanning devices Trios®, Panda® and E3® presented similar and adequate accuracy and reliability.
期刊介绍：
Une revue de référence dans le domaine de orthodontie et des disciplines frontières Your reference in dentofacial orthopedics International Orthodontics adresse aux orthodontistes, aux dentistes, aux stomatologistes, aux chirurgiens maxillo-faciaux et aux plasticiens de la face, ainsi quà leurs assistant(e)s. International Orthodontics is addressed to orthodontists, dentists, stomatologists, maxillofacial surgeons and facial plastic surgeons, as well as their assistants.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
