Objectives: The goal of the study was to determine the effects of software updates on the trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained with a variety of intraoral scanner (IOS) systems.
Method and materials: Seven IOS systems were investigated. Each system was tested using two versions of software, with the second version being the latest at the time of conducting the study. Scans were performed on a custom mandibular typodont model with natural teeth that were either unrestored or restored with amalgam, composite, lithium disilicate, zirconia, and gold. Eight scans were obtained for each software version on any of the tested IOS systems. Experimental IOS scans were compared against an industry-standard master scan of the typodont obtained with an ATOS Capsule scanner proven to have a trueness of 3 µm and a precision of 2 µm. Isolation of each substrate material on the digital experimental and master scans was achieved using the Geomagic metrology software for subsequent analysis of the substrate influence on accuracy. A generalized linear mixed model was used to determine the influence of the software version on the trueness and precision of the impression scan.
Results: For some IOS systems, scans made with older software versions differ in accuracy compared with those obtained with the most recent software versions. Trueness was improved for most scanners following the software update, although the Element2 IOS performance deteriorated. Software updates had lesser effects on precision and showed variable trends among different systems. Software updates also influence different substrate materials scans’ accuracy, although the results show variability among IOS systems. When comparisons were done among IOS systems updated with the latest software version, best performers for complete arch trueness were the Emerald S, Trios 3, and Primescan systems.
Conclusion: Software updates have a statistically significant effect on the trueness and precision of different IOS systems. These updates can have both positive and negative effects on scan accuracy, although it appears that these variations are within the clinical acceptability levels.