Objective: The study aimed to compare cavity volume data obtained with two different intraoral scanners. Methods: One hundred extracted molar teeth were divided into groups according to ICDAS-II classification, and scanned with Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona) and iTero Element Flex (Align Technology). The caries-infected tissues were removed regarding either minimally invasive or conventional cavity principles. Samples were scanned again and volumetric data were assessed by Meshmixer 3.5 (Autodesk) 3D modeling software. Statistical evaluations were performed with Mann Whitney U test and Spearman’s Correlation test. The significance level was α=0.05. Results: Although there was a significant difference between obtained initial volume readings of two scanners for 3M and 3C groups (p < 0.05), no significant difference was observed among other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Regarding the comparison of final volume readings of two scanners, a significant difference was found for 5M group (p = 0.036), whereas no significant difference was observed for other groups (p ≥ 0.05). Percentage of volume loss between two scanners was statistically similar (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: Data obtained with Cerec Omnicam and iTero Element Flex were compatible with volumetric assessments. Both intraoral scanners may be considered effective for calculating caries-related cavity volumes. Minimally invasive cavity principles may provide less volume loss compared to conventional cavity principles.


1. Featherstone JD. Dental caries: A dynamic disease process. Aust Dent J. 2008; 53(3):286-91.

2. Zero DT, Fontana M, Martínez-Mier EA, FerreiraZandoná A, Ando M, González-Cabezas C, Bayne S. The biology, prevention, diagnosis and treatment of dental caries: Scientific advances in the United States. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140 Suppl 1:25S-34S.

3. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001; 3(1):45-64.

4. Tuncer S, Demirci M, Tekçe N. Minimally invasive dentistry concept, approach and strategy. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dent Sci Spec Top. 2014; 5(3):1-11.

5. Featherstone J D, Doméjean S. Minimal intervention dentistry: part 1. From ‘compulsive’ restorative dentistry to rational therapeutic strategies. Br Dent J. 2012; 213(9):441-5.

6. Jablonski-Momeni A, Stachniss V, Ricketts D, Hein zel- Gutenbr u n ner M, Pieper K. Reproducibility and accuracy of the ICDAS-II for detection of occlusal caries in vitro. Caries Res. 2008; 42(2):79-87.

7. Diniz MB, Lima LM, Eckert G, Zandona AF, Cordeiro RC, Pinto LS. In vitro evaluation of ICDAS and radiographic examination of occlusal surfaces and their association with treatment decisions. Oper Dent. 2011; 36(2):133-42.

8. Mumcuoğlu T, Erdurman FC, Durukan AH. Principles and novel clinical applications of optical coherence tomography. Turk J Ophthalmol. 2008; 38(2):168-75.

9. Hsieh YS, Ho YC, Lee SY, Chuang CC, Tsai JC, Lin KF, Sun CW. Dental optical coherence tomography. Sensors (Basel). 2013; 13(7):8928-49.

10. Shimada Y, Sadr A, Sumi Y, Tagami J. Application of optical coherence tomography (OCT) for diagnosis of caries, cracks, and defects of restorations. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2015; 2(2):73- 80.

11. Yanikoglu F, Korkut B, Celik Z, Cetinbay C, Erkan K, Kocaman A, Tagtekin D. Volumetric tissue loss of carious teeth scored with ICDAS II. Int J Sci Res. 2018; 7(4):69-72.

12. Shahid F, Alam M, Khamis MF. Application of micro-CT in various discipline of clinical and research dentistry. Int J Pharma Bio Sci. 2015; 6(3):1194-206.

13. Liu PR. A panorama of dental CAD/CAM restorative systems. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2005; 26(7):507-8.

14. Vandenberghe B. The digital patient - Imaging science in dentistry. J Dent. 2018; 74 Suppl 1:S21-6.

15. Goodacre BJ, Swamidass RS, Lozada J, Al-Ardah A, Sahl E. A 3D-printed guide for lateral approach sinus grafting: A dental technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119(6):897-901.

16. Reymus M, Fotiadou C, Hickel R, Diegritz C. 3D-printed model for hands-on training in dental traumatology. Int Endod J. 2018; 51(11):1313-9.

17. Moser N, Santander P, Quast A. From 3D imaging to 3D printing in dentistry-a practical guide. Int J Comput Dent. 2018; 21(4):345-56.

18. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17(1):92.

19. Çağlar İ, Duymuş ZY, Sabit A. Contemporary approaches to dental impression systems: Digital impression. J Dent Fac Ataturk Univ. 2015; 25(10):135-140.

20. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120(3):343-52.

21. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2016; 11(9):e0163107.

22. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent. 2013; 16(1):11-21.

23. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - A current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015; 18(2):101-29.

24. Ciocca L, Meneghello R, Monaco C, Savio G, Scheda L, Gatto MR, Baldissara P. In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018; 13(7):1097-108.

25. Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144(3):471-8.

26. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22(1):11-9.

27. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(3):313-20.

28. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27(1):35-41.

29. Albdour EA, Shaheen E, Vranckx M, Mangano FG, Politis C, Jacobs R. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1):117.

30. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118(1):36-42.

31. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120(6):895-903.e1.

32. Rudolph H, Luthardt RG, Walter MH. Computeraided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med. 2007; 37(5):579-87.

33. Ericson D. What is minimally invasive dentistry? Oral Health Prev Dent. 2004; 2 Suppl 1:287-92.

34. Peters MC, McLean ME. Minimally invasive operative care. I. Minimal intervention and concepts for minimally invasive cavit y preparations. J Adhes Dent. 2001; 3(1):7-16.

35. Unlu N, Ermis RB, Sener S, Kucukyilmaz E, Cetin AR. An in vitro comparison of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries. Int J Dent. 2010; 2010:864935.

36. Iwami Y, Shimizu A, Narimatsu M, Hayashi M, Takeshige F, Ebisu S. Relationship between bacterial infection and evaluation using a laser fluorescence device, DIAGNOdent. Eur J Oral Sci. 2004; 112(5):419-23.

37. Lussi A, Hibst R, Paulus R. DIAGNOdent: an optical method for caries detection. J Dent Res. 2004; 83 Spec No C:C80-3.

38. Yonemoto K, Eguro T, Maeda T, Tanaka H. Application of DIAGNOdent as a guide for removing carious dentin with Er:YAG laser. J Dent. 2006; 34(4):269-76.

39. Sirin Karaarslan E, Yildiz E, Cebe MA, Yegin Z, Ozturk B. Evaluation of micro-tensile bond strength of caries-affected human dentine after three different caries removal techniques. J Dent. 2012; 40(10):793-801.

40. Cebe MA, Ozturk B, Sirin Karaarslan E. Effect of caries removal techniques on bond strength to caries affected dentin on gingival wall: AFM observation of dentinal surface. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2016; 30(2):157-170.

41. Hack GD, Patzelt S. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: An in-vitro investigation. ADA Prof Prod Rev. 2015; 10(4):1-5.

42. European Society of Endodontology; Patel S, Durack C, Abella F, Roig M, Shemesh H, Lambrechts P, Lemberg K. European Society of Endodontology position statement: the use of CBCT in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(6):502-4.

43. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: Conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011; 14(1):11-21.

44. Kurt MH, Orhan K. Micro-computed tomography in dentistry. Turkiye Klinikleri J Oral Maxillofac Radiol Spec Top. 2016; 2(1):14-21.

45. Ferraz C, Freire AR, Mendonça JS, Fernandes CA, Cardona JC, Yamauti M. Effectiveness of different mechanical methods on dentin caries removal: Micro-CT and digital image evaluation. Oper Dent. 2015; 40(3):263-70.

46. Neves AA, Lourenço RA, Alves HD, Lopes RT, Primo LG. Caries-removal effectiveness of a papain-based chemo-mechanical agent: A quantitative micro-CT study. Scanning. 2015; 37(4):258-64.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.