Clinical precision of Aoralscan 3 and Emerald S on the palatal and dentition areas: Evaluation for forensic applications

Objectives

To compare the precision (repeatability and intermediate precision) of palatal and dentition scans taken with two different intraoral scanners.

Methods

The maxillary arch of 23 individuals was scanned three times using the Aoralscan 3 (Shining 3D) and Emerald S (Planmeca), resulting in 6 scans per individual. The scans were segmented in Meshmixer into palatal and dentition areas. Each replicate of an individual was compared within the specific scanner (repeatability) and to the corresponding replicate of the other scanner (intermediate precision). The scans were aligned using the iterative closest-point algorithm in the Zeiss Inspect software. The mean absolute distance between the aligned surfaces was calculated. Statistical comparisons were made using Friedman's two-way analysis of variance. Data are presented in median (quartile 1; quartile 3) form.

Results

No significant difference in repeatability was found between Emerald S and Aoralscan 3 for the palate (26 µm [22; 26] vs. 22 µm [18; 26]) and for dentition (37 µm [31; 44] vs. 38 µm [35; 48]. Intermediate precision of the palate (32 µm [26; 43]) and dentition (72 µm [63; 80]) was significantly lower than the repeatability of Emerald S (p < 0.05, p < 0.001) and of Aorlascan 3 (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Both precision types of both scanners were significantly lower for the dentition than for the palate (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The precision of the dentition scan is lower than that of the palate. The precision of the Aoralscan 3 is similar to that of the Emerald S scanner.

Clinical significance

Novel intraoral scanners could be used with high precision for palatal soft tissue scans, expanding their clinical utility. Aligning scans from two different IOSs still has high precision, facilitating the interchangeable use of intraoral scanners for orthodontic, prosthetic, and forensic examinations.