Russo, L.L.L.L.RussoZhurakivska, K.K.ZhurakivskaSperanza, D.D.SperanzaSalamini, A.A.SalaminiCiavarella, D.D.CiavarellaCiaramella, S.S.CiaramellaMartorelli, M.M.Martorelli2022-03-052022-03-052018https://publica.fraunhofer.de/handle/publica/25684710.15866/iremos.v11i1.14186The use of intraoral scanners and Additive Manufacturing (AM) techniques in dentistry is increasing, and such technologies are integrated in daily workflows for the production of various types of dental restorations. Thus, it is clinically sensible to assess the accuracy of these systems. This in vivo study presents a comparison, in term of accuracy, among three commercially available AM systems, used to rapid prototype models obtained from intraoral scans data. Eight patients with a complete dentition were selected. Complete-arch scans of both upper and lower jaws were obtained using the 3Shape Trios 3 color intraoral scanner. The corresponding CAD models were created by means of the 3Shape Dental System software, and three AM systems, Photocentric LC10 (AM1), Zortrax M 200 (AM2) and Prusa I3 (AM3) were used to manufacture them. The manufactured fourty-eight models were scanned with the 3Shape Trios 3 color scanner, by the same operator. Scans of the manufactured model s were aligned and compared to the reference intraoral scan by means of a Reverse Engineering software (Geomagic Studio). The comparison between the scans of the manufactured models and the reference intraoral scans, for the eight patients, shows a standard deviation (SD) in the range 0.11 â 0.27 mm for AM1, in the range 0.04 â 0.26 mm for AM2 and in the range 0.07 â 0.26 mm for AM3. The results of this research show that Prusa I3 and Zortrax M 200 are statistically more accurate than Photocentric LC10. Nevertheless, if we consider the amount of difference in accuracy, this may be not relevant from a clinical point of view. Thus, the three AM systems can be used in some dental applications which are compatible with the reported accuracy.enjournal article