Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Monday, March 11, 2019 at 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?


Currently submitted to: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Nov 27, 2019
Open Peer Review Period: Nov 27, 2019 - Jan 22, 2020
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer-review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer-Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

The influence of scanner precision and analysis software on quantifying 3D intraoral changes: Two-factor factorial experimental design

  • Saoirse O'Toole; 
  • David Bartlett; 
  • Andrew Keeling; 
  • John McBride; 
  • Eduardo Bernabe; 
  • Luuk Crins; 
  • Bas Loomans; 



Digital scanners are being increasingly used to quantify biological topographical changes and clinical health outcomes in primary care settings. However, measurements obtained using these rapidly developing systems are rarely compared with previous precision measurements in tertiary laboratory-based settings.


This investigation used dental intraoral scans to compare a primary care method of measurement (intraoral scanners with an open-source measurement software) with a precision hospital-based method of measurement (laser profilometer and engineering software).


Longitudinal dental wear data from 30 patients were analysed using a two-factor factorial experimental design. At the same appointment, bimaxillary intraoral digital scans (TrueDefinition, 3M, UK) and silicone impressions, poured in type 4 dental stone, were made at baseline and follow up appointments (36 months±10.9). Stone models were scanned using precision laser profilometry (Taicaan, Southampton UK). 3D changes in the digital scans of the first molars (n=76) were quantitatively analysed in both engineering software Geomagic Control (3DSystems, Germany) and free ware WearCompare (Leeds, UK). Volume change(mm3) was the primary measurement outcome in addition to, maximum point loss (microns) and the average profile loss (microns) were recorded. Data, analysed in SPSSv25 (IBM, USA), were paired and skewed. Wilcoxon signed rank tests with Bonferroni correction were used.


The median volume change(IQR) for Geomagic using profilometry was -0.37mm3(IQR-3.75,2.30) and for the intraoral scan +0.51mm3(IQR -2.17,4.26), p<0.001. In WearCompare, the median volume change for profilometry was -1.21mm3(IQR -3.48,0.56) and -0.39 mm3(IQR -3.96,2.76) for intraoral scanning (p=0.039). WearCompare detected significantly greater volume loss than Geomagic regardless of scanner type. No differences were observed between groups when maximum point loss or average profile loss was analysed.


The method of data capture, software used, and measurement metric significantly affected the measurement outcome. The combination of analysing profilometry data in WearCompare reported statistically more volume loss over the study period.


Please cite as:

O'Toole S, Bartlett D, Keeling A, McBride J, Bernabe E, Crins L, Loomans B

The influence of scanner precision and analysis software on quantifying 3D intraoral changes: Two-factor factorial experimental design

JMIR Preprints. 27/11/2019:17150

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.17150


Download PDF

Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.