Effects of battery levels and transmission distances on the accuracy and scan time of wireless intraoral scanners in complete-arch scans: An in vitro study

Yong-Qing Guo; Kai-Jin Lin; Zi-En Wang; Hao Yu

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105975

Effects of battery levels and transmission distances on the accuracy and scan time of wireless intraoral scanners in complete-arch scans: An in vitro study

J Dent. 2025 Jul 11:105975. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105975. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Yong-Qing Guo¹, Kai-Jin Lin¹, Zi-En Wang¹, Hao Yu²

Affiliations

¹ Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases & Fujian Provincial Engineering Research Center of Oral Biomaterial & Stomatological Key Laboratory of Fujian College and University, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350002, Fujian, China.
² School and Hospital of Stomatology, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350002, Fujian, China; Department of Applied Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan. Electronic address: haoyu-cn@hotmail.com.

PMID: 40653002
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105975

Abstract

Objectives: This study explored the effects of battery levels and transmission distances on the accuracy and scan time of wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) during complete-arch scans.

Methods: A maxillary complete-arch typodont was used as a master model. Two wireless IOSs (Trios 4 wireless [TR4] and Trios 5 [TR5]; 3Shape A/S, Denmark) were evaluated across 4 battery levels (1∼25%, 26∼50%, 51∼75%, and 76∼100%) and 3 transmission distances (0.8±0.5 m, 2.0±0.5 m, and 4.0±0.5 m). A reference standard tessellation language (STL) file was generated by digitizing the master model with a laboratory scanner (InEos X5; Dentsply Sirona, USA). A total of 480 experimental STL files (n=20) were generated, and the corresponding scan time were recorded. Scanning accuracy (trueness and precision) was assessed by calculating the root mean square (RMS) deviation via Geomagic Control X. Two-way ANOVA was performed to analyze the data (α=0.05).

Results: Battery level and transmission distance significantly affected the trueness and scan time (p<0.05). The least distortion was observed at low battery levels (1∼25%) and the most distant ranges (4.0±0.5 m) (TR4: 71.64±16.16 µm and TR5: 57.94±10.96 µm), whereas the fastest scans occurred at high battery levels (76∼100%) and close distances (0.8±0.5 m) (TR4: 54.20±4.51 s and TR5: 48.65±4.45 s). The scanning precision was independently influenced by both factors (p<0.05), with the highest precision at high battery levels (76∼100%) and close distances (0.8±0.5 m) (TR4: 54.92±5.24 µm and TR5: 63.88±12.86 µm).

Conclusions: Moderate transmission distances (2.0±0.5 m) did not impair scanning trueness, even at lower battery levels (1∼25%). However, maintaining battery levels above 50% is recommended for optimal scanning accuracy and efficiency.

Clinical significance: This study highlights the importance of optimizing transmission distances and battery levels to increase the performance of wireless IOSs in complete-arch scanning workflows.

Keywords: Battery level; Intraoral scanners; Scan time; Scanning accuracy; Transmission distance; Wireless.