Accuracy and reproducibility of the visualization of occlusal contact points using analog articulating foil or digital intraoral scanners in vitro

Aim: The accuracy and reproducibility of occlusal contact points visualized by articulating foil (AF) were investigated and then compared with those calculated by three different intraoral scanners (IOSs). Materials and methods: Occlusal contact points were visualized on a standardized resin dental tooth model using AF 50 times in maximum intercuspation and with a constant biting force. The occlusal contact points were photographed from a vertical position above the model and superimposed on a screen to test the reproducibility of the model. This was followed by 50-fold repetition by scans and computation of the occlusal contact points by three different IOSs: CS 3600 (CS Scan Flow v.1, 4th version), Trios 3 (Basic 2019), and Cerec Omnicam (software version 5.1). The results of the computation were captured with screenshots and were then overlaid with the photographs of the AF. The image overlays were classified into five categories: 1 = total overlapping of contact points, 2 = partial overlapping of contact points, 3 = adjacent contact points without overlapping, 4 = contact points identified only by AF, 5 = contact points identified only by IOS. All data were statistically evaluated (95% confidence interval). Results: In total, the visualization of the occlusal contact points by the IOSs were significantly less accurate and less reproducible compared with the AF (P < 0.05). When sensitivity and accuracy were combined, the Trios 3 (3Shape) showed significantly better results than the other IOSs tested (P < 0.05). Conclusion: In vitro, AF displayed a significantly more accurate visualization of the occlusal contact points than the IOSs.

Automated summary

In this study, the accuracy and reproducibility of occlusal contact points visualized by articulating foil were compared with those calculated by three different intraoral scanners. The results showed that the occlusal contact points visualized by the scanners were significantly less accurate and less reproducible compared with the foil. Among the scanners tested, the Trios 3 showed significantly better results in terms of sensitivity and accuracy.