Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study

Table 3 Mean precision and its standard deviation (SD) in micrometers (μm) with single crown (SC), partial prosthesis (PP) and full-arch (FA), and p values testing the scanner by context interaction. N = 10 scans for each scanner and implant type

Scanner	Single Crown (SC)	Partial prosthesis (PP)	Full arch (FA)	p-value¹
Scanner	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	p-value¹
Trios 3®	15.2 ± 0.8†,‡,•	21.0 ± 1.9‡,•	35.6 ± 3.4†,‡,•	<.0001
CS 3600®	11.3 ± 1.1^,§,#	17.0 ± 2.3^,§,#	35.7 ± 4.3^,§,#	<.0001
Emerald®	32.8 ± 10.7†,^	29.9 ± 8.9^,°	61.5 ± 18.1†,^,°,*	0.0007
DWIO®	27.1 ± 10.7‡,§	34.8 ± 10.8‡,§	111.0 ± 24.8‡,§,°,^ç	<.0001
Omnicam®	30.6 ± 3.3•,#	43.2 ± 9.4•,#,°	89.3 ± 14.0•,#,*,^ç	<.0001

The same symbol after SD indicates differences in precision between scanner pairs (Tukey-adjustment for multiple comparison). Minimum significant difference across scanners: 8.8 μm, 9.8 μm, 19.4 μm for single crown (SC), partial prosthesis (PP) and full arch (FA), respectively. ¹p-value testing the interaction between scanner and context (SC vs. PP vs. FA) from non-parametric, Kruskall-Wallis test. A p-value > 0.05 indicates no difference in scanner precision according to the context

ISSN: 1472-6831