Evaluation of Accuracy and User Acceptance of Intraoral Scanner Technology Compared with Conventional Impressions in Prosthodontics
Keywords:
Intraoral scanner, Conventional impression, Digital dentistry, Prosthodontics, Accuracy, User acceptanceAbstract
Digital impression technologies have transformed contemporary prosthodontic practice, with intraoral scanners (IOS) emerging as an alternative to conventional polyvinyl siloxane impressions (CI). This prospective comparative study evaluated the dimensional accuracy and user acceptance of IOS in fixed prosthodontic procedures. Sixty patients requiring single- or multi-unit prostheses at the Department of Prosthodontics, Universitas Indonesia, underwent both IOS (CEREC Primescan) and CI techniques. Accuracy was assessed by superimposing digitized casts with reference scans using root mean square (RMS) deviation analysis, while clinician usability and patient comfort were measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), respectively. IOS demonstrated significantly greater accuracy (mean RMS: 18.7 ± 4.2 µm) compared to CI (42.3 ± 9.6 µm; p < .001), with a large effect size (d = 2.89). Patient comfort was also significantly higher with IOS (VAS: 8.4 ± 1.1) than CI (4.7 ± 1.8; p < .001). Clinicians reported good usability (SUS: 76.3/100) following initial training. Overall, IOS provided superior accuracy and improved patient experience, supporting its broader adoption in modern prosthodontic workflows.
References
Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310802205776
Ender, A., & Mehl, A. (2011). Full arch scans: Conventional versus digital impressions An in vitro study. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, 14(1), 11–21.
Ender, A., Zimmermann, M., & Mehl, A. (2019). Accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions: An in vitro investigation. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, 22(1), 11–19.
Güth, J. F., Keul, C., Stimmelmayr, M., Beuer, F., & Edelhoff, D. (2013). Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clinical Oral Investigations, 17(4), 1201–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0
Hamalian, T. A., Nasr, E., & Chidiac, J. J. (2011). Impression materials in the prosthodontic discipline: A comparative review, update, and practical tips. Journal of Prosthodontics, 20(2), 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00673.x
ISO 12836:2015. Dentistry Digitizing devices for CAD/CAM systems for indirect dental restorations Test methods for assessing accuracy. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
Kihara, H., Hatakeyama, W., Komine, F., Takafuji, K., & Kondo, H. (2020). Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. Journal of Prosthodontic Research, 64(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010
Latham, J., Ludlow, M., Sesen, A., & Bhatt, D. (2021). Accuracy of digital versus conventional impressions for partial coverage restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 126(4), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.08.028
Logozzo, S., Zanetti, E. M., Franceschini, G., Kilpelä, A., & Mäkynen, A. (2014). Recent advances in dental optics Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Optics and Lasers in Engineering, 54, 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
Mangano, F. G., Hauschild, U., Veronesi, G., Imburgia, M., Mangano, C., & Admakin, O. (2017). Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health, 19(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0792-6
Mangano, F., Gandolfi, A., Luongo, G., & Logozzo, S. (2018). Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health, 18(1), 149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0621-9
Papaspyridakos, P., Gallucci, G. O., Chen, C. J., Hanssen, S., Naert, I., & Vandenberghe, B. (2020). Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: Accuracy outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 31(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13530
Revilla-León, M., & Özcan, M. (2019). Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: Current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. Journal of Prosthodontics, 28(2), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12801
Yuzbasioglu, E., Kurt, H., Turunc, R., & Bilir, H. (2014). Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health, 14(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
Zimmermann, M., Mehl, A., Mörmann, W. H., & Reich, S. (2015). Intraoral scanning systems A current overview. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, 18(2), 101–129.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dentistry, Oral Knowledge, and Therapeutic Education Research (Dokter Gigi)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
