This research aimed to assess the accuracy—including both trueness and precision—of nine intra-oral digital scanners and four laboratory scanners for full-arch scanning. Although earlier investigations have evaluated certain intra-oral scanners, the rapid evolution of scanning technology warrants an updated analysis to determine the performance of the latest commercially available models. In this in vitro study, nine intra-oral scanners (Omnicam 4.6; Omnicam 5.1; Primescan; CS 3600; Trios 3; Trios 4; Runyes; i500; DL206) and four lab light scanners (Einscan SE; 300e; E2; Ineos X5) were compared. Ten scans from each device were aligned, trimmed, and imported into CloudCompare software. Using a best-fit algorithm, each scan was compared against a master STL model, and deviations were recorded. Standard deviations were calculated, and colorimetric maps highlighted surface deviations. Specific points on the STL mesh were used to quantify accuracy.
Among the intra-oral scanners, Primescan demonstrated the highest overall trueness (17.3 ± 4.9 µm), followed by Trios 4 (20.8 ± 6.2 µm), i500 (25.2 ± 7.3 µm), CS3600 (26.9 ± 15.9 µm), Trios 3 (27.7 ± 6.8 µm), Runyes (47.2 ± 5.4 µm), Omnicam 5.1 (55.1 ± 9.5 µm), Omnicam 4.6 (57.5 ± 3.2 µm), and Launca DL206 (58.5 ± 22.0 µm). For lab scanners, Ineos X5 exhibited the best trueness (0.0 ± 1.9 µm), followed by 3Shape E2 (3.6 ± 2.2 µm), Up3D 300E (12.8 ± 2.7 µm), and Einscan SE (14.9 ± 9.5 µm). The findings indicate that modern intra-oral scanners can reliably generate reproducible full-arch scans in dentate patients. None of the intra-oral devices matched the trueness of the Ineos X5 lab scanner, though Primescan achieved a level of trueness comparable to the 3Shape E2. All devices maintained a mean trueness below 60 µm. While these results apply to dentate arches, scanning fully edentulous arches remains more challenging, and further studies should explore scanner performance in such cases.
