PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to present a methodology to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) used in vivo . MATERIALS AND METHODS: A specific feature-based gauge was designed, manufactured, and measured in a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), obtaining reference distances and angles.Then, 10 scans were taken by an IOS with the gauge in the patient’s mouth and from the obtained stereolithography (STL) files, a total of 40 distances and 150angles were measured and compared with the gauge’s reference values. In order to provide a comparison, there were defined distance and angle groups in accordance with the increasing scanning area: from a short span area to a complete-arch scanning extension. Data was analyzed using software for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Deviations in measured distances showed that accuracy worsened as the scanning area increased: trueness varied from 0.018± 0.021 mm in a distance equivalent to the space spanning a four-unit bridge to 0.106 ± 0.08 mm in a space equivalent to a complete arch. Precision ranged from 0.015 ± 0.03 mm to 0.077 ± 0.073 mm in the same two areas. When analyzing angles, deviations did not show such a worsening pattern. In addition, deviations in angle measurement values were low and there were no calculated significant differences among angle groups. CONCLUSION Currently, there is no standardized procedure to assess the accuracy of IOS in vivo , and the results show that the proposed methodology can contribute to this purpose. The deviations measured in the study show a worsening accuracy when increasing the length of the scanning area.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to present a methodology to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) used in vivo . MATERIALS AND METHODS: A specific feature-based gauge was designed, manufactured, and measured in a coordinate measuring machine (CMM), obtaining reference distances and angles.Then, 10 scans were taken by an IOS with the gauge in the patient’s mouth and from the obtained stereolithography (STL) files, a total of 40 distances and 150angles were measured and compared with the gauge’s reference values. In order to provide a comparison, there were defined distance and angle groups in accordance with the increasing scanning area: from a short span area to a complete-arch scanning extension. Data was analyzed using software for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Deviations in measured distances showed that accuracy worsened as the scanning area increased: trueness varied from 0.018± 0.021 mm in a distance equivalent to the space spanning a four-unit bridge to 0.106 ± 0.08 mm in a space equivalent to a complete arch. Precision ranged from 0.015 ± 0.03 mm to 0.077 ± 0.073 mm in the same two areas. When analyzing angles, deviations did not show such a worsening pattern. In addition, deviations in angle measurement values were low and there were no calculated significant differences among angle groups. CONCLUSION Currently, there is no standardized procedure to assess the accuracy of IOS in vivo , and the results show that the proposed methodology can contribute to this purpose. The deviations measured in the study show a worsening accuracy when increasing the length of the scanning area.