Top 10 intraoral scanners 2019 (CEREC Digest)
Foreword: Learning from Your Mistakes
Two years ago, I wrote an article entitled “Overview of Intraoral Scanners at IDS 2017”, comparing 14 intraoral scanners at a dental show in Cologne. Based on the practical data of the first scan collected by the CEREC Asia team, we rated each scanner according to four criteria: speed, size, ease of use, and scanning correction efficiency.Surprisingly, this article has since collected more than 200,000 views today, attracting many comments and questions from dentists and dental technicians around the world. She has also spawned a number of similar review articles and, more importantly, helped organize discussions on intraoral scanners around the world, especially in Asia.
At CEREC Digest, we pride ourselves on writing evidence-based research articles. Although we are in no way affiliated with Dentsply-Sirona in any way, we are acutely aware of the assumptions that people base on the word “CEREC” in the name of our community. However, we do not consider this a disadvantage. On the contrary, it is a constant reminder that we need to make extra efforts and ensure the validity of our claims.
But we are still people, and some of our decisions, even after everything that we have considered, are still somewhat subjective. Not surprisingly, the same 2017 article, which was very popular, also attracted a fairly large wave of criticism, especially from manufacturers who ranked low on the list. Although most complaints were unproductive and self-serving, we acknowledge that some of them were well-founded.
Over the past year, we have been discussing within the community to understand how we can do better and possibly make the whole review process more meaningful. As a result, we have identified several points that can be improved, and in this article we are pleased to show you a new rating system for intraoral scanners, which is more clinically relevant.
Tenderloin for hunters
If you are in a hurry and just want a short summary, here is the section for you. Since there are many important difficulties and nuances in our analyzes, I recommend reading the entire article before doing anything reckless, for example, sending me a strict letter of disagreement.
Without further ado, here are our general ratings for intraoral scanners shown at IDS 2019:
Our choice is the top 10 intraoral scanners of 2019.
Vertical positions indicate a rating from top to bottom. Classes do not affect the ranking, but are simply needed for categorical purposes. Read on for more information.
To say that the intraoral scanner is very important for my work is to downplay. In our modest clinic with 10 dental chairs, we produce an average of 500 cabinet CAD / CAM restorations per month. Having clinical experience with CEREC, 3Shape and Planmeca (albeit much less than in the other two), I first-hand learned about the best (and worst) sides of these different systems.
Back in 2017, when I last visited IDS with our CEREC Asia team, it seemed to me that there were only two intraoral scanner systems that were truly clinically viable: Omnicam from Dentsply-Sirona and Trios 3 from 3Shape. This is not to say that other scanners are unusable, but they really leave much to be desired. Although part of this was reflected in the overall score of the scanners, some of the things that bothered us were undoubtedly insignificant, and it was difficult to quantify them in our review.
Has this changed in 2019?
As expected, the overall quality of the apparatus and software for intraoral scanners has improved over the past two years. Moreover, the overall rating of scanners relative to each other, for the most part, has not undergone fundamental changes. In the end, it is a complex technology, and therefore it is clear that development should be gradual. 3Shape Trios 4 is a striking example of the complexity of the update for the scanner, which was already one of the best – Trios 3.
That’s why I was very excited to see new scanner designs at IDS this year, regardless of whether they worked well or not. Because it shows that these manufacturers, at least, have received sufficient demand from the market, or at least enough positive reinforcement for investment. I’m talking about scanners such as Virtuo Vivo from Dental Wing, Aadva IOS 200 from GC, X Pro from Kavo and Primescan from Dentsply-Sirona. I think it’s risky to invent new technologies, and I applaud these companies for their attempts.