Digital impressions and dental 3d imaging software might be fast and eliminate some of the steps found in analog impression taking, but what about intraoral scanner accuracy?
It should be noted that eliminating steps in the process itself aids accuracy, as the more steps required the more likely it is to inadvertently introduce human error or material flaws. Digital scan quality is itself measured in terms of accuracy. We’ve outlined what exactly accuracy is and how it affects your treatments on our blog.
Today, intraoral scanner accuracy is equal to, if not better than, results from analog impressions. And there is extensive clinical research in this area that highlights this. Learning how to interpret accuracy data in clinical studies is key when you want to assess which scanner is best for your purposes.
In Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Dentistry: A Systematic Review, Chandran et al. 2019, found that 67% of (16 of 24) studies showed that digital impressions from dental digital impression scanners are more accurate (in microns) when compared to conventional impression taking, with 92% of (22 of 24) studies show the same level of clinical acceptability as conventional.
The Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research review summarized that digital impressions are superior to conventional impressions, without any statistically significant difference, based on assessment of accuracy, patient preference and operator
In addition, Dr. Vincent Prestipino, Prosthodontist, told 3Shape, “The curtain that doctors have been hiding behind: the one that says digital is no good or the quality isn’t there, no longer exists.”
For more information, you can review our complete library of clinical studies, or get a practitioner’s perspective on it by downloading the 3Shape ebook ’Intraoral scanning and treatment quality – what the research says.’