Accuracy•9 articles•4 Posters

Shade measurement•1 article

Technology comparison•1 article

”3Shape TRIOS® Color had the best agreement of all included methods for the color chroma and hue”...”whereas the conventional visual, subjective method demonstrated a moderate agreement for the color value and a fair agreement for the color hue”

“The TRIOS® intraoral scanner was easy to handle and more convenient to the patient than the MHT SpectroShadeTM”

Gotredsen et al, Int J Oral Dent Health, 2015, p. 25.

Figure 1 TRIOS® Color Figure 2 SpectroShadeTM Figure 3 Vita 3D-Master®

“The effectiveness of the new digital scanning and computer software system for color determination was as good as an earlier tested and validated digital colorimetric system and as the conventional, visual method for color determination of teeth.”

“The results support the use of a scanning and color measuring computer-based system in dentistry.”

Gotredsen et al, Int J Oral Dent Health, 2015

Best shade match by comparing 3Shape TRIOS® Color with traditional Visual method and SpectroShadeTM with traditional Visual method

AccuracyDeviation of one measurement compared to golden standard

TruenessDeviation of average of multiple measurements compared to golden standard

Precision (repeatibility)Average deviation of measurements compared to the average of those multiple measurements

Real tooth Golden standard (high accuracy digitalization)*

Digital Impression of tooth

*High accuracy digitalization of Real tooth (in vivo) is commonly obtained through digitalisation of a conventional impression in a lab scanner. A model (in vitro) is commonly digitalized directly in a lab scanner

Digital impressions with TRIOS® are at least as accurate as conventional impression accross indications

“Digital impressions with TRIOS are of good precision and up to the clinical standard” 1

There is no significant difference between intraoral impressions with TRIOS®, extra oral scanning of a plaster model with TRIOS® and model scanning with D7002

“Digital implant impressions are as accurate as conventional implant impressions” 3

”Accuracy of digital impressions is often more precise than traditional silicone impressions of implants independent of implant connection type, scanners and number of implants.” 4

TRIOS full arch scans are significantly more accurate than conventional impressions using standard perforated metal trays with alginate5

TRIOS quadrant scans are significantly more accurate than conventional impressions using tripple tray with Identium6

1Yang et al, Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao, 2015 Feb 18

2 Atia et al, Biometrics & Biostatics International Journal 2015 April 6

3 Papaspyridakos et al, Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 Feb 13

4 Khachatryan et al, The 14th Congress of the European Academy of Dento-Maxillofacial Radiology. Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 25-28 June 2014

5 Ender et al, J Prosthet Dent. Nov 6 2015 E-pub

6 Ender et al, Clin Oral Investig. Nov 7 2015 E-pub

Hack and Patzelt, 2015 Issues of the ADA Professional Product Review Volume 10 Issue 4, September 25, 2015

The smallest deviations for both the trueness and the precision measurements (±standard deviation) between the reference dataset and the various intraoral scanner datasets were obtained from the TRIOS®

TRIOS® is significantly more accurate than CEREC Omnicam and PlanScan

TRIOS® #1 in Evaluation of the Accuracy of Six IOS Devices

TRIOS Color and TRIOS Standard significantly more accurate than LavaCos, Itero and Omnicam

”Digital intraoral impression of small parts of the dental arch in cases of individual tooth restoration is a fast procedure compared to conventional impression taking”… “Combined with a direct digital workflow, immediate restoration production is possible”

Ender et al, Clin Oral Investig. Nov 7 2015 E-pub

“The precision of complete-arch scans approaches or exceeds that of some conventional impression materials (POE, ALG).”

Patients report greater comfort when digital impression systems are used, and for some indications, the time expenditure is lower than for conventional impression techniques. This shows the potential of digital intraoral impression systems as an equivalent or better alternative to traditional conventional impression procedures.

Fig. Precision of digital complete arch impression in vivo (µm)

Table. Precision of digital complete arch impression in vivo (µm)

Ender et al, J Prosthet Dent. Nov 6 2015 E-pub

”Zirconia copings for single-tooth restorations based on intraoral scans and conventional impressions in combination with laboratory scans – with the exception of Cerec Omnicam – are comparable to one another with regard to their marginal fit.”

”Only TRIOS and Omnicam were used in randomized order. True Definition was always used as the third intraoral scanner because of the necessary powder application”...”Considering the clinical conditions, a longer stay of the cords in the sulcus often improves the local conditions for the impression.”

Boeddinghaus et al, Clin Oral Investig, 2015

Summarized results for the marginal gap. Same letters denote significant differences (p<0.05) in between the groups.

“It can be argued that powdering or dusting to achieve an anti-reflective coating of hard tissue structures compromise accuracy, as it seems intuitive that over-application of the powder layer may negatively influence marginal or internal adaptation. Furthermore, any of these coatings are difficult to handle clinically, especially in a moist environment. Although the present study used aerosol sprays with mean particle size of 5 µm to avoid a thick-layer formation, powdering affected both marginal and internal adaption.”

Schaefer et al, J Dent 2014 Jun E-pub 2014 Feb 6

“Itero and TRIOS® impressions required no preliminary powdering or dusting and performed significantly better than Lava COS and CEREC Bluecam, that needed such coating procedures”

Color-coded difference images for qualitative deviation analysis of internal (upper row) and marginal surfaces (lower row). Sample images that contribute best to the authors’findings were selected for each impression technique.

Reference Key findings Indication Study type Control

Yang X et al 2015 Digital impressions with TRIOS® are of good precision and up to the clinical standardAccuracy of TRIOS® digital impressions less than 10 µm

Single crown In vitro (n=10) Silicone rubber impression poured with type IV plaster and digitalized with 3Shape D700

Atia et al 2015 There is no significant difference between intraoral impressions with TRIOS®, extra oral scanning of a plaster model with TRIOS® and model scanning with D700

Full arch (ortho) In vivo (40 patients)

Plaster models scanned with D700

Papaspyridikos et al 2015

TRIOS® implant impressions are as accurate as conventional implant impressions

Edentulous In vitro (n=10) Stone cast with 5 implants

Ender et al, J Prosthet Dent. Nov 6 2015 E-pub

TRIOS full arch scans are significantly more accurate than conventional impressions using standard perforated metal trays with alginate5

Full arch In vivo (n=15) 3 impressions on 5 participants

Conventional impressions poured with type iV plaster and digitalized with iSeries; Dental Wings)

Ender et al, Clin Oral Investig. Nov 7 2015 E-pub

TRIOS quadrant scans are significantly more accurate than conventional impressions using tripple tray with Identium6

Quadrant In vivo (n=15) 3 impressions on 5 participants

Conventional impressions poured with type iV plaster and digitalized with inEOS X5, Sirona Dental Systems)