Title	Intraoral Scanning Provides Comparable Accuracy to Conventional Impression Materials for Orthodontic Treatment Planning
Clinical Question	Can intraoral scanning provide as much accuracy and detail as conventional impressions for orthodontic treatment planning?
Clinical Bottom Line	Intraoral scanning can provide equal or greater accuracy compared to some conventional impression materials and may aid in orthodontic treatment planning. In some cases, intraoral scanning may be a clinically acceptable alternative, especially as digital technology continues to improve.
Best Evidence
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type (level of evidence) 25439218 Grunheid/2014 15 orthodontic patients with full permanent dentition from first molar to first molar In vivo and in vitro comparative study Key results Intraoral scanning has the ability to produce digital models that are as accurate as those made from alginate impressions. As efficiency and speed improves with digital technology, intraoral scanning may be a more viable option than traditional impressions for orthodontic use. 23910212 Naidu/2013 30 patients with full permanent dentition from first molar to first molar In vivo comparative study Key results Intraoral scanning via the iOC/OrthoCAD system provided clinically acceptable accuracy in measuring tooth widths and Bolton ratios with excellent reliability and reproducibility. 26548890 Ender/2016 5 patients with complete dentition In vivo comparative study Key results Intraoral scanning showed adequate accuracy across a complete arch, with better results from newer systems like the CEREC Omnicam, 3M’s True Definition Scanner, 3Shape Trios, and 3Shape Trios Color. Intraoral scanning was more accurate than some conventional impression materials like alginate, though vinylsiloxanether materials produced the highest precision.
Evidence Search	“Intraoral scanning” [All Fields] AND “accuracy” [All Fields]
Comments on The Evidence	Validity: All three studies used different methods to determine the accuracy of intraoral scanning. The Ender article was more valid because it compared several digital systems, including newer ones such as the 3Shape Trios, to a range of impression materials. The Grunheid article only compared scanning to alginate, and the Naidu article was limited to the iOC/OrthoCAD system. However, although the Ender article scanned complete arches, the full mouth was not done in any patient. Results were compared from scans and impressions after they were fabricated into stone or digital models and subjected to statistical analysis. Overall, a weakness of all three studies is that each utilized small study samples for their patient groups. However, the fact that all three were clinical in-vivo studies strengthens the evidence. The articles stated that with continued development of digital systems, intraoral scanning could one day be a more suitable option to conventional impression materials, including for orthodontic treatment planning. For that reason, studies should be updated or repeated as digital systems improve or emerge. Perspective: Intraoral scanning is currently utilized widely in the fabrication of indirect restorations, and as an aid in other fields of dentistry including orthodontics. Factors such as scanning efficiency, operator technique, and patient acceptance must also be considered when choosing intraoral scanning over another method, though digital technology is constantly improving for expanded use, including in orthodontics.
Applicability	In certain clinical scenarios, intraoral scanning may be used with equal or increased accuracy compared to conventional impression materials for orthodontic treatment planning. With the continued advances in digital technology, it may become a more viable option for general dentists and orthodontists to utilize in treatment planning their cases.
Specialty	(Public Health) (General Dentistry) (Orthodontics) (Pediatric Dentistry) (Prosthodontics)
Keywords	scanning; orthodontics; digital models; impression materials
ID#	3313
Date of submission	03/26/2018
E-mail	ktran29@midwestern.edu
Author	Kevin Tran
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor	Dennis Cufone, DDS
Faculty mentor e-mail	dcufon@midwestern.edu
Basic Science Rationale (Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT (FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) None available