Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\nThis year at the International Dental Show (IDS) in Cologne, Germany, visitors witnessed an explosion of digital dentistry in both hardware and software. As avid CEREC users, my colleagues and I attended IDS with the purpose of getting our hands on the latest technology the industry had to offer.<\/p>\n
There were a few clues ahead of time that indicated big releases from reputable companies, but it was the sheer scale and diversity of the digital applications that amazed us. Some were practical and long overdue, while others were exciting and totally out there. For me, the best part was how IDS showcased the rapid growth and tight competitions in the trade, and this can only be good news for the end users.<\/p>\n
The original version of this article was written in Chinese and released a few days after IDS ended. Due to popular demand from our friends overseas, we decided to release this revised edition in English. Keep in mind that the contents of this article is not a direct translation, but an updated view after we had some time to, dare I say, digest the material in the couple of weeks following IDS.<\/p>\n
In this particular review, we have focused on the intraoral scanners (IOS) that were available at IDS. For each device, we’ve noted down some preliminary thoughts based on our first-hand impressions, and compiled a numerical rating based on our established criteria. The purpose of our endeavor was to provide some useful information to the dentists of Taiwan (and now, the world), and in no way do we claim objective accuracy. As far as we know, however, there are no known references in organizing and rating IOS, at least not of the magnitude that we are attempting here.<\/p>\n
Full disclaimer: I was a 3Shape TRIOS user for my master’s degree dissertation, and now use the latest CEREC system for routine treatments at the office.<\/em><\/p>\n#Update 06\/10\/2017: As I’ve written in the Addendum section, an unfortunate consequence of reviews is the appearance of “winners” and “losers”. In the past two months after the release of this article, I have been contacted by numerous individuals representing a variety of interests, including dentists, technicians, retailers, and companies whose scanners we reviewed. Most of the engagements have been very informative and tremendously productive. However, since the commentary in this article was based on our initial and subjective experience, it would seem strange and inappropriate to make changes to its main text, except where there are factual errors that are verifiable (and there were a few that were pointed out).\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nThat being said, I do understand the concerns raised by many with regard to our rating system, which admittedly is very subjective. It is apparent that we have completely ignored certain criteria, such as the cost of the devices, their design and milling (CAD\/CAM) capabilities, and differences in their target demographic. This was on purpose, but now due to the overwhelming and unexpected popularity of this article, it feels like perhaps an explanation is warranted. I will provide a link to the exposition when it is published.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/span>Review Criteria<\/span><\/h1>\nBefore we begin, it’s useful to establish some criteria for evaluation. The primary concerns of most dentists revolve around the speed of the IOS, and rightly so, since speed alone can determine whether the scanner\u00a0is clinically viable or not. However, there are several other factors that are often overlooked, and some are arguably just as important.<\/p>\n
The following are the four major criteria that we feel are most important to a dental clinician.<\/p>\n
Scanning Speed<\/h3>\n
As of now, all IOS’s\u00a0use\u00a0some form of light for image acquisition, and the quality of this light can be easily contaminated in the dynamics of the oral cavity. Movable tissues, fluids, and metallic surfaces are just a few of the complications that can drastically prolong scanning time, since the devices may have trouble finding usable images to stitch together.<\/p>\n
A speedy scanner means that the timeframe for human errors to occur is reduced, and issues such as excessive bleeding and soft tissue interference can be more easily managed. This in turn produces a better signal-to-noise ratio, making scanning speed imperative for both patient comfort and impression accuracy.<\/p>\n
Size of Scanner Head<\/h3>\n
Unlike some things in this world, bigger isn’t usually better for intraoral scanners. In particular, the size of the part that does the actual scanning (i.e. the “head”) can decide how easy it is to access the distal angles and embrasures of the molars. While there are some merits to the argument that a larger scanner head can process a wider area in the same period of time, we feel that the trade-off is still in favor of smaller scanners, to a certain degree.<\/p>\n
Ease of Use<\/h3>\n
One thing we noticed while trying out the IOS’s was that some would stutter, and some were simply not as convenient to use for various reasons. This may be due to software optimization, or the shape and weight distribution of the scanner, or whether or not powdering is required.\u00a0For this criterion, we were looking for problems that cause unnecessary delays or pauses during the scanning procedure.<\/p>\n
Image Capture<\/h3>\n
Sometimes clinicians may not be to achieve a satisfactory image acquisition in one scan, and subsequent scanning of the same regions to fill the “holes” in the models become necessary. For this criterion, we gave ratings based on how easy it was to perform a scan until completion, whether this had to do with software navigation, model manipulation, camera repositioning, or other factors.<\/p>\n
There were also some secondary features that may be of interest to the reader:<\/p>\n
Touch-screen controls
\n<\/strong>Powderless
\n<\/strong>Remote Control
\n<\/strong>Color Acquisition
\n<\/strong>Shade Selection<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>TRIOS 3 (3Shape)<\/span><\/h1>\n