This study compared the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners (IOS) by the virtual-fit
method.Four maxillary arches with tooth abutments were scanned with an industrial
reference scanner (n=1) and by Aoralscan3, EmeraldS, Helios600, Lumina, Mediti700,
Primescan, and Trios5 IOSs (each n=12). Two complete-arch fixed frameworks were designed
on each IOS scan with a 70 µm (group 70) and a 90 µm internal cement space (group
70+20, additional 20 µm at the margin). The virtual-fit method was comprised of superimposing
the framework designs onto the reference scan using a non-penetrating algorithm simulating
the clinical try-in. Internal and marginal gaps were measured. Precision was estimated
by the mean absolute errors (MAE).In group 70, Mediti700 (43 µm), Primescan (42 µm),
and EmeraldS were in the best homogenous subset for the marginal gap, followed by
the Lumina (67 µm), Aoralscan3 (70 µm), and Trios5 (70 µm), whereas Helios600 (118
µm) was in the third subset. Based on the MAE at the margin, Mediti700, Trios5, and
EmeraldS were in the first-best homogenous subset, followed by Primescan. Lumina and
Helios600 were in the third subset, and Aoralscan3 was in the fourth subset. In group
70+20, the marginal gap was significantly decreased for Lumina and Aoralscan3, whereas
MAE significantly decreased for EmeraldS and Aoralscan3. The rank of IOSs was similar
for the internal gap.EmeraldS, Mediti700, Primescan, and Trios5 meet the marginal
and internal fit criteria for fixed tooth-borne complete arch restorations. Increasing
the cement space during design could enhance restoration fit.The virtual-fit alignment
method can effectively evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners, offering
valuable clinical guidance for distinguishing among them. Recent software and hardware
versions of long-standing IOS manufacturers are suitable for fabricating complete
arch restoration.
