Effect of 3D superimposition software on intraoral scanner accuracy and monitoring outcome

{"OBJECTIVES:":[0],"To":[1],"determine":[2],"whether":[3],"3D":[4,10,233],"superimposition":[5],"software":[6,104,216,225,260],"(\\"Apps\\")":[7],"systematically":[8],"affects":[9],"deviation":[11,234],"outcomes":[12],"derived":[13],"from":[14,127],"intraoral":[15],"scanner":[16,40],"(IOS)":[17],"data,":[18],"using":[19],"two":[20],"quantile‑range":[21,243],"accuracy":[22,254],"metrics":[23],"(Q90_Q10_half":[24],"and":[25,57,73,85,98,101,108,122,148,166,179,190,261,274],"Q95_Q05_half).":[26],"MATERIALS":[27],"AND":[28],"METHODS:":[29],"Two":[30],"jaw‑sized":[31],"reference":[32,45],"models":[33],"were":[34,125,210],"digitized":[35],"with":[36,142,266],"a":[37,227],"high‑resolution":[38],"optical":[39],"(ATOS":[41],"III)":[42],"to":[43,87,113],"generate":[44],"STL":[46,63],"meshes":[47,64],"(REF_STL).":[48],"Five":[49],"IOS":[50,208],"devices":[51],"acquired":[52],"ten":[53],"scans":[54],"per":[55,58],"device":[56],"jaw":[59],"model,":[60],"exported":[61],"as":[62,139],"(IMP_STL):":[65],"Emerald":[66],"Green,":[67],"iTero":[68],"5D,":[69],"Medit":[70,105],"i900,":[71],"Primescan,":[72],"Trios":[74],"5.":[75],"Each":[76],"IMP_STL":[77],"was":[78],"trimmed":[79],"(1":[80],"mm":[81],"above":[82],"gingival":[83],"line)":[84],"superimposed":[86],"REF_STL":[88],"in":[89,111,232,252],"four":[90],"Apps:":[91],"commercial":[92],"industrial":[93],"software:":[94],"Geomagic":[95],"Control":[96,171,197,236],"X":[97,172,198,237],"GOM":[99],"Inspect,":[100],"open":[102],"dentistry-focused":[103],"Design":[106],"(Compare)":[107],"Dentexion;":[109],"resulting":[110],"total":[112],"N":[114],"=":[115,156],"400":[116],"superimpositions.":[117],"For":[118,195],"each":[119],"superimposition,":[120],"Q90_Q10_half":[121,162,182],"Q95_Q05_half":[123,167],"values":[124],"computed":[126],"point-wise":[128],"signed":[129],"surface":[130],"distances.":[131],"A":[132],"linear":[133],"mixed‑effects":[134],"model":[135],"tested":[136],"factor":[137],"App":[138,159],"fixed":[140],"effect":[141],"random":[143],"intercepts":[144],"for":[145,181,246],"factors":[146],"Device":[147],"Jaw,":[149],"followed":[150],"by":[151],"Bonferroni‑adjusted":[152],"pairwise":[153],"comparisons":[154,251],"(α":[155],"0.05).":[157],"RESULTS:":[158],"significantly":[160],"influenced":[161],"(p":[163,168],"<":[164,169,185,205],"0.01)":[165],"0.001).":[170],"yielded":[173],"higher":[174,240],"adjusted":[175],"means":[176],"than":[177],"Dentexion":[178],"Compare":[180,191],"(both":[183],"p":[184,204],"0.01),":[186],"while":[187],"Dentexion,":[188],"GOM,":[189],"did":[192],"not":[193,220],"differ.":[194],"Q95_Q05_half,":[196],"exceeded":[199],"all":[200],"other":[201],"Apps":[202,264],"(all":[203],"0.01).":[206],"Notably,":[207],"rankings":[209],"stable":[211],"across":[212],"Apps,":[213],"indicating":[214],"that":[215],"altered":[217],"magnitude":[218],"but":[219],"relative":[221],"ordering.":[222],"CONCLUSIONS:":[223],"Evaluation":[224],"is":[226],"significant":[228],"source":[229],"of":[230],"variability":[231],"metrics;":[235],"produced":[238],"consistently":[239],"(more":[241],"conservative)":[242],"values,":[244],"particularly":[245],"Q95_Q05_half.":[247],"CLINICAL":[248],"RELEVANCE:":[249],"Inter‑study":[250],"digital":[253],"research":[255],"should":[256],"report":[257],"the":[258],"evaluation":[259],"settings.":[262],"Dentistry‑focused":[263],"(e.g.,":[265],"automated":[267],"tooth":[268],"segmentation)":[269],"may":[270],"reduce":[271],"operator‑dependent":[272],"effects":[273],"facilitate":[275],"clinically":[276],"applicable":[277],"monitoring.":[278]}

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published
2026-09-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-026-07136-8
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Effect of 3D superimposition software on intraoral scanner accuracy and monitoring outcome

Andreas Ender, Jenny Buhl, Albert Mehl
Clinical Oral Investigations
Dental materials and restorations
article

Effect of 3D superimposition software on intraoral scanner accuracy and monitoring outcome

Andreas Ender, Jenny Buhl, Albert Mehl
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether 3D superimposition software ("Apps") systematically affects 3D deviation outcomes derived from intraoral scanner (IOS) data, using two quantile‑range accuracy metrics (Q90_Q10_half and Q95_Q05_half). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two jaw‑sized reference models were digitized with a high‑resolution optical scanner (ATOS III) to generate reference STL meshes (REF_STL). Five IOS devices acquired ten scans per device and per jaw model, exported as STL meshes (IMP_STL): Emerald Green, iTero 5D, Medit i900, Primescan, and Trios 5. Each IMP_STL was trimmed (1 mm above gingival line) and superimposed to REF_STL in four Apps: commercial industrial software: Geomagic Control X and GOM Inspect, and open dentistry-focused software Medit Design (Compare) and Dentexion; resulting in total to N = 400 superimpositions. For each superimposition, Q90_Q10_half and Q95_Q05_half values were computed from point-wise signed surface distances. A linear mixed‑effects model tested factor App as fixed effect with random intercepts for factors Device and Jaw, followed by Bonferroni‑adjusted pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). RESULTS: App significantly influenced Q90_Q10_half (p < 0.01) and Q95_Q05_half (p < 0.001). Control X yielded higher adjusted means than Dentexion and Compare for Q90_Q10_half (both p < 0.01), while Dentexion, GOM, and Compare did not differ. For Q95_Q05_half, Control X exceeded all other Apps (all p < 0.01). Notably, IOS rankings were stable across Apps, indicating that software altered magnitude but not relative ordering. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation software is a significant source of variability in 3D deviation metrics; Control X produced consistently higher (more conservative) quantile‑range values, particularly for Q95_Q05_half. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Inter‑study comparisons in digital accuracy research should report the evaluation software and settings. Dentistry‑focused Apps (e.g., with automated tooth segmentation) may reduce operator‑dependent effects and facilitate clinically applicable monitoring.

Clinical Oral InvestigationsVol. 30(10)
University of Zurich (CH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.