Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

Effect of auxiliary geometric devices on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of a novel auxiliary geometric device (AGD) on the accuracy of full-arch scans captured with 3 different intraoral scanners (IOS).

METHODS

An edentulous maxillary model with four internal connection implant replicas was scanned using 3 different IOS: iTero Element 5D (ITERO) (Align Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA), Trios 4 (TRIOS) (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), and Carestream 3700 (CS) (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, USA). Thirty-six scans were taken with each IOS, 18 with the AGD in place, and 18 without the AGD. A digital master model was created using an industrial optical scanner (ATOS compact Scan 5M, GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany). The master and IOS models were aligned using the scan bodies as a reference area. A surface comparison was performed, and deviation labels were exported for each scan body to evaluate the linear and angular deviation. Total body, platform and angular deviations were measured.

RESULTS

The use of AGD resulted in a statistically significant increase of angular deviation: 0.87° (SD=0.21) in the AGD group versus 0.64° (SD=0.46) in the no AGD group (p-value=0.005). The difference between the AGD and no AGD groups was not statistically significant for total body and platform deviation values (p-value=0.051 and 0.302 respectively). Using AGD, ITERO showed a statistically significant increase in angular deviation (mean difference=-0.46 µm, p-value=0.002) and a decrease in mean platform deviation (mean difference=63.19 µm, p-value<0.001). No statistically significant differences were found for the other IOS.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AGD did not add benefit on CS and TRIOS. On ITERO, there was an improvement in platform deviation, that was outweighed by the worsening of the angular deviation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In vitro data suggest that intraoral scans can be successfully used in full-arch cases. The use of AGD has no additional benefit on CS and TRIOS. On ITERO there was an improvement in platform deviation that was outweighed by the worsening of the angular deviation. Translational application to clinical practice deserves further investigation, taking into account patient-related and anatomical variables.

Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study compared the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for angulated and straight implants using two different impression coping and scan body designs.

METHODS

Two implant systems were used: Straumann and Dentegris. Two implants were placed for each system, straight and angulated at 15 degrees mesiodistally. Conventional impressions were made using the splinted open-tray technique using narrow impression coping (NIC) and wide impression coping (WIC). The stone casts produced from the conventional impression were digitized with a lab scanner (3Shape D2000). Digital impressions were made using four intraoral scanners (IOS): 3Shape Trios 3, Medit i700, Cerec Omnicam, and Emerald Planmeca using short scanbodies (SSB) and long scanbodies (LSB). The scanning was repeated ten times to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The distance and angle deviations between impression copings and scanbodies were measured in reference to the master model.

RESULTS

The trueness and precision of SSB and WIC were significantly better than LSB and NIC (p<0.001). The range trueness of the platform deviation was better with SSB (37.1 to 51.9) than LSB (89.6 to 127.9 μm) and for WIC than NIC in conventional impressions (58.2 and 75.1 μm, respectively). The trueness of the angle deviation of digital scans with SSB (0.11 to 0.25 degrees) was significantly better than scans with LSB (0.31 to 0.57 degrees) and for WIC than NIC (0.21 and 0.52 degrees, respectively). The precision of the platform deviation of digital scans with SSB (12.4 to 34.5 μm) was higher than other scans and conventional impressions (42.9 to 71.4 μm). The precision of the angle deviation of Medit i700 and Trios 3 with SSB (0.17 and 0.20 degrees, respectively) was higher than other scans with SSB and conventional impressions (0.54 to 1.63 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scans with SSB were more accurate than conventional splinted open-tray impressions. The type of impression coping and scanbody significantly affected the impression accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of a short scanbody can increase the accuracy of digital impressions, and wide impression coping can increase the accuracy of conventional impressions, resulting in improved clinical outcomes.

Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.

Trueness and precision of an intraoral scanner on abutments with subgingival vertical margins: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of an intraoral scanner (IOS - Medit i700) on tooth abutments with vertical preparations at 2 depths below the free gingival margin, and to determine if the IOS can reproduce the area beyond the finish surface of the tested preparation geometry.

METHODS

Two abutments for a maxillary first molar were designed by means of CAD software, with vertical preparations set at 1 and 2 mm below the gingiva. These abutments were subsequently printed in resin and placed on a reference model. The reference files consisted of scans made using a metrological machine on these abutments. Ten scans were made with the tested IOS on each sample, resulting in two study groups. The scans from the experimental groups were labeled "V-1″ for vertical preparation at 1 mm below the gingival margin and "V-2″ for 2 mm below. The analysis of these scans was performed using Geomagic Control X (3D SYSTEMS) to assess their trueness and precision in µm. Descriptive statistics with a 95 % confidence interval were employed, alongside independent sample tests, to ascertain any differences between the groups (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were not found both for trueness (p=.104) and precision (p=.409), between the tested geometries. The mean values for trueness were V-1 = 37.5[31.4-43.6]; V-2 = 32.6[30.6-34.6]. About the precision, the mean values were V-1 = 20.5[8.4-32.5]; V-2 = 18.4[8.2-28.5]. In both the study groups, it was possible to detect the surface beyond the finish area.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, vertical preparation design allows for registration of the tooth anatomy beyond the finish area with IOS. Moreover, the mean accuracy values were clinically acceptable at both 1 and 2 mm below the gingival margin.

A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs).

METHODS

Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes.

RESULTS

16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations.

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Multiple factors can influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). However, the impact of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of IOSs for fabricating tooth-supported crowns remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present in vitro study was to measure the influence of scan extension (half or complete arch scan) and the starting quadrant (same quadrant or contralateral quadrant of the location of the crown preparation) on the accuracy of four IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710) to obtain a reference scan. Four scanner groups were created: TRIOS 5, PrimeScan, i700, and iTero. Then, 3 subgroups were defined based on the scan extension and starting quadrant: half arch (HA subgroup), complete arch scan starting on the left quadrant (CA-same subgroup), and complete arch scan starting on the right quadrant (CA-contralateral subgroup), (n=15). The reference scan was used as a control to measure the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the tooth preparation, margin of the tooth preparation, and adjacent tooth areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

For the tooth preparation analysis, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.002). The iTero and TRIOS5 groups obtained better trueness than the PrimeScan and i700 groups (P<.001). Moreover, half arch scans obtained the best trueness, while the CA-contralateral scans obtained the worst trueness (P<.001). The iTero group showed the worst precision among the IOSs tested. For the margin of the tooth preparation evaluation, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The iTero group obtained best trueness (P<.001), but the worst precision (P<.001) among the IOSs tested. Half arch scans obtained the best trueness and precision values. For the adjacent tooth analysis, trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best trueness and precision. Half arch scans obtained the best accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Scan extension and the starting quadrant impacted the scanning trueness and precision of the IOSs tested. Additionally, the IOSs showed varying scanning discrepancies depending on the scanning area assessed. Half arch scans presented the highest trueness and precision, and the complete arch scans in which the scan started in the contralateral quadrant of where the crown preparation was obtained the worst trueness and precision.

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses.

METHODS

This in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured.

RESULTS

The mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 µm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 µm to 255.56 ± 395.89 µm) (p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners (p < 0.001). The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions (p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Passive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of intraoral scanning coverage (IOSC) on digital implant impression accuracy in various partially edentulous situations and predict the optimal IOSC.

METHODS

Five types of resin models were fabricated, each simulating single or multiple tooth loss scenarios with inserted implants and scan bodies. IOSC was subgrouped to cover two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve teeth, as well as full arch. Each group underwent ten scans. A desktop scanner served as the reference. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the Root mean square error (RMSE) values of scan bodies. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to predict the optimal IOSC with different edentulous situations. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.

RESULTS

For single-tooth-missing situations, in anterior sites, significantly better accuracy was observed in groups with IOSC ranging from four teeth to full arch (p < 0.05). In premolar sites, IOSC spanning four to six teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05), while in molar sites, groups with IOSC encompassing two to eight teeth exhibited better accuracy (p < 0.05). For multiple-teeth-missing situations, IOSC covering four, six, and eight teeth, as well as full arch showed better accuracy in anterior gaps (p < 0.05). In posterior gaps, IOSC of two, four, six or eight teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05). The CNN predicted distinct optimal IOSC for different edentulous scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant impression accuracy can be significantly impacted by IOSC in different partially edentulous situations. The selection of IOSC should be customized to the specific dentition defect condition.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The number of teeth scanned can significantly affect digital implant impression accuracy. For missing single or four anterior teeth, scan at least four or six neighboring teeth is acceptable. In lateral cases, two neighboring teeth may suffice, but extending over ten teeth, including contralateral side, might deteriorate the scan.

Influence of connected and nonconnected calibrated frameworks on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using four intraoral scanners, a desktop scanner, and a photogrammetry system

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Different techniques have been proposed for increasing the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs), including a calibrated metal framework (IOSFix); however, its accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of complete arch scans obtained with connecting and non-connecting the implant scan bodies (ISBs) recorded using intraoral scanners (IOSs), a laboratory scanner (LBS), and photogrammetry (PG).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cast with 6 implant abutment analogs was obtained. Six groups were created: TRIOS 4, i700, iTero, CS3800, LBS, and PG groups. The IOSs and LBS groups were divided into 3 subgroups: nonconnected ISBs (ISB), splinted ISBs (SSB), and calibrated framework (CF), (n=15). For the ISB subgroups, an ISB was positioned on each implant abutment analog. For the SSB subgroups, a printed framework was used to connect the ISBs. For the CF subgroups, a calibrated framework (IOSFix) was used to connect the ISBs. For the PG group, scans were captured using a PG (PIC Camera). Implant positions of the reference cast were measured using a coordinate measurement machine, and Euclidean distances were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies using the same distances obtained on each experimental scan. Wilcoxon squares 2-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Linear and angular discrepancies were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001). Linear (P=.008) and angular (P<.001) precision differences were found among the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The digitizing method and technique impacted the trueness and precision of the implant scans. The photogrammetry and calibrated framework groups obtained the best accuracy. Except for TRIOS 4, the calibrated framework method improved the accuracy of the scans obtained by using the IOSs tested.

A Systematic Review of the Use of Intraoral Scanning for Human Identification Based on Palatal Morphology

A common application for intraoral scanners is the digitization of the morphology of teeth and palatal rugae. Palatal scans are most commonly required to fabricate complete dentures and immediate transitional dentures and serve as a reference point for assessing orthodontic results. However, they are also frequently included by accident, even though the main purpose of intraoral scanning is to reconstruct dentition using computer-aided manufacturing (CAM). The literature shows that the identification of disaster victims has frequently involved palatal rugae impressions. As the skull provides sound insulation, the rugae are resistant to heat, chemicals, and stress. Antemortem data might be difficult to find during a forensic inquiry, particularly in disaster victim identification cases. In contrast with DNA and fingerprints, there is a greater likelihood of having a dental record that contains palatal scans. With specialized software, the scans can be exported as open stereolithography (STL) files. Considering that a full case consumes up to about 100 MB of hard drive space, long-term storage should not be an issue compared to a plaster model. Additionally, dentists widely use online databases to exchange data for smile design, implant registration, and orthodontic purposes. This will produce a digital database that grows quickly and is readily usable for forensic investigations. The uniqueness of forensic features is frequently challenged; however, palatal morphology's unique trait could make it possible as it is characteristic of individuals as well as the most distinguishing factor. This review will highlight how rugae, palatal morphology, mirroring, superimposition, and geometrics can serve in forensic identification.

Influence of Implant Adjacent Teeth on the Accuracy of Digital Impression

OBJECTIVE

 The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth patterns on the accuracy of digital scans of parallel and divergent implants for three-unit prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A maxillary typodont model with implants in the locations of the first premolars and first molars was used to develop three clinical scenarios for three-unit prostheses: (S1) Partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars and first molars only; (S2) partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars, second premolars and first molars; and (S3) partially edentulous arch with missing canines, first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars. On one side, the implants were parallel, and for the other side, the implants had a 15-degree buccolingual angle. With the aid of scan bodies, 10 digital impressions were taken for each scenario and for each side. To evaluate the accuracy, a reverse engineering software was used to measure trueness, precision, and interimplant distance.

RESULTS

 The best trueness for parallel implants was observed for S2 (30.0 µm), followed by S3 (67.3 µm) and S1 (74.8 µm) (p < 0.001). Likewise, S2 had the best precision for parallel implants (31.3 µm) followed by S3 (38.0 µm) and S1 (70.3 µm) (p < 0.001). For the divergent implants, S2 exhibited the best trueness (23.1 µm), followed by S3 (48.2 µm) and S1 (59.4 µm) (p = 0.007). Similarly, the S2 had the best precision (12.3 µm) followed by S3 (62.1 µm) and S1 (66.9 µm) (p < 0.001). The S2 had the least interimplant distance deviation followed by S1 and S3. The difference was significant for parallel implants (p = 0.03), but insignificant for divergent implants (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

 Regardless of the presenting scenario, digital implant impressions for three-unit prostheses appear to be clinically accurate. A clear interimplant area between scan bodies enhanced the accuracy of digital impressions. This observation can be attributed to more accessible axial surface scanning of the scan body.

Application of the virtual-fit method for fixed complete denture cases designed on intraoral scans: Effect of cement spacing

OBJECTIVES

To validate the virtual-fit alignment, analyze the impact of cement spacing on internal/marginal gaps, and correlate results with conventional trueness measures.

METHODS

Four dental abutment models were scanned using an industrial reference scanner (one time each), Emerald S (three times each), and Medit i700 (three times each) intraoral scanners (IOS). On each IOS scan (n = 24), three complete-arch fixed frameworks were designed with 70 or 140 µm cement space with no marginal space (groups 70 and 140) and 70 µm with an additional 20 µm space, including the margin (group 70+20). Two types of alignment were performed by GOM Inspect software. The reference and IOS scans were aligned through a conventional iterative closest point algorithm (ICP) where the penetration of the two scans was permitted into each other (conventional trueness method). Second, the computer-aided designs were superimposed with the reference scan also using an ICP, but preventing the design from virtual penetration into the model (virtual-fit method). The virtual-fit algorithm was validated by non-penetration alignment of the designs with the IOS scans. Internal and marginal gap was measured between the design and the abutments. The difference between spacing groups was compared by Friedman's test. A statistical correlation (Spearman's Rho Test) was computed between the measured gaps and the conventional trueness method. A significant difference was accepted at p<0.05 after the Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

The gaps deviated from the set cement space by 3-13 µm on IOS scans (validation of virtual-fit algorithm). The internal gap of the design on the reference scan was not affected by cement spacing (Emerald S, p = 0.779; Medit i700, p = 0.205). The marginal gap in groups 70 and 70+20 was significantly lower than in group 140 in Emerald S (p<0.05). In Medit i700, it was lower in the 70+20 group than in the group 70 (p<0.01) and in the group 140 (p<0.05). Some Medit i700 scans exhibited high marginal gaps within group 70 but not in groups 70 and 140. The measured gaps correlated significantly (r = 0.51-0.81, p<0.05-0.001) with the conventional trueness but were 2.6-4.6 times higher (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Virtual-fit alignment can simulate restoration seating. A 20 µm marginal and 90 µm internal spacing could compensate for scan errors up to several hundred micrometers. However, 140 µm internal spacing is counterproductive. The conventional trueness method could only partially predict framework misfit.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The virtual-fit method can provide clinically interpretable data for intraoral scanners. Emerald S and Medit i700 intraoral scanners are suitable for fabricating complete-arch fixed tooth-supported prostheses. In addition, a slight elevation of spacing at the margin could compensate for moderate inaccuracies in a scan.

Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible

Background/purpose

The accuracy of a full-arch scan by using an intraoral scanner should be validated under clinical conditions. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in the maxilla and mandible using two intra oral scanners with three different scan segmental sequential ranges.

Materials and methods

A dental model with 28 teeth in their normal positions served as the reference. Sixty full-arch scans were performed using Trios 3 and Trios 4, employing scanning strategy O (manufacturer's original method), OH (segmental sequential ranges one half), and TQ (segmental sequential ranges third quarter). Trueness was evaluated by comparing digital impressions with a reference dataset using specialized software. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests assessed differences between the groups.

Results

For Trios 3 on the maxilla, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness; in the mandible, strategy O exhibited a significant difference (P = 0.008) with the highest deviation. For Trios 4 on the maxilla, strategy TQ demonstrated the lowest deviation with a significant difference (P = 0.006); in the mandible, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness.

Conclusion

Strategy TQ exhibited the best trueness for Trios 3 and Trios 4, suggesting it may be preferred for higher accuracy. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting scanning strategies and intraoral scanners for specific cases.

Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions using seven different scanbodies and four intraoral scanners. A 3D-printed maxillary model with six implants and their respective multi-unit abutments was used for this study. Seven scanbodies (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB4, SB5, SB6, and SB7) and four intraoral scanners (Primescan®, Omnican®, Trios 3®, and Trios 4®) were assessed. Each combination group was scanned ten times and a dental lab scanner (D2000, 3Shape) was used as a reference. All scans were exported as STL files, imported into Convince software (3Shape) for alignment, and later into Blender software, where their 3D positions were analyzed using a Python script. The 3D deviation, angular deviation, and linear distance between implants #3 and #14 were also measured. Accuracy was measured in terms of "trueness" (scanbody 3D deviation between intraoral scan and desktop scan). Kruskal-Wallis followed by the Bonferroni correction was used to analyze the data (⍺ = .05). The study found statistically significant differences in digital impression accuracy among the scanners and scanbodies (p<0.001). When comparing different intraoral scanners, the Primescan system showed the smallest 3D deviation (median 110.59 μm) and differed statistically from the others, while Trios 4 (median 122.35 μm) and Trios 3 (median 130.62 μm) did not differ from each other (p = .284). No differences were found in the linear distance between implants #3 and #14 between Trios 4, Primescan, and Trios 3 systems. When comparing different scanbodies, the lowest median values for 3D deviation were obtained by SB2 (72.27μm) and SB7 (93.31μm), and they did not differ from each other (p = .116). The implant scanbody and intraoral scanner influenced the accuracy of digital impressions on completely edentulous arches.

Influence of age, training, intraoral scanner, and software version on the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of operator age on the scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of inexperienced operators when compared with experienced operators, and how training, intraoral scanner (IOS), and software version affect scan accuracy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-four operators were sorted into groups: G1 (operators <25 years old, no experience), G2 (operators >40 years old, no experience), and G3 (experienced IOS operators). They conducted partial-arch scans before and after a 4-session training with two IOSs (Trios 3 and True Definition) and two software versions. These scans were compared with the reference scans obtained from conventional impressions and a laboratory scanner (IScan D103i) to evaluate trueness (mean root mean square values) and precision (standard deviation of root mean square values) with a software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn's tests were used to evaluate the effect of age on the scan accuracy of inexperienced groups when compared with experienced operators, while the effect of training, IOS, and software version on scan accuracy was evaluated with Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Before training, G1 and G2 scans had similar accuracy (p ≥ 0.065). After training, G1 scans had higher accuracy when IOS data was pooled and had higher precision with TD (p ≤ 0.004). Training increased the scan accuracy (p < 0.001), while newer software increased the trueness of inexperienced operator scans (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Age affected the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators after training, indicating that extended training may be required for older operators. Training increased the scan accuracy, and newer software increased the trueness of inexperienced operator scans.

Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations with and without scanbodies splinting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two maxillary models were designed and fabricated to receive an all-on-four implant retained. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30 and Group 2; 45). Each group was then divided into three subgroups according to the type of IOS used: Subgroup C; Primescan, subgroup T; Trios4, and subgroup M; Medit i600. Then each subgroup was divided into two divisions according to scanning technique; division S: splinted and division N: nonsplinted. Ten scans were made by each scanner for every division. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic controlX analysis software.

RESULTS

Angulation had no significant effect on both the trueness (p = 0.854) and precision (p = 0.347). Splinting had a significant effect on trueness and precision (p < 0.001). Scanner type had a significant effect on trueness (p < 0.001) and precision (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between trueness of Trios 4 (112.15 ± 12.85) and Primescan (106.75 ± 22.58). However, there was a significant difference when compared to trueness of Medit i600 (158.50 ± 27.65). For the precision results Cerec Primescan showed the highest precision (95.45 ± 33.21). There was a significant difference between the three scanners, precision of Trios4 (109.72 ± 19.24) and Medit i600 (121.21 ± 17.26).

CONCLUSION

Cerec Primescan has higher trueness and precision than Trios 4 and Medit i600 in full arch implants scanning. Splinting the scanbodies improve the accuracy of full arch implants scanning.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cerec Primescan and 3Shape Trios 4 can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis when scanbodies are splinted using a modular chain device.

Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the trueness and precision of five intraoral scanners (Emerald S, iTero Element 5D, Medit i700, Primescan, and Trios 4) and two indirect digitization techniques for both teeth and soft tissues on fresh mandibular and maxillary cadaver jaws.

METHODS

The maxilla and mandible of a fully dentate cadaver were scanned by the ATOS industrial scanner to create a master model. Then, the specimens were scanned eight times by each intraoral scanner (IOS). In addition, 8 polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions were made and digitized with a Medit T710 desktop scanner. Stone models were then poured and again scanned with the desktop scanner. All IOS, PVS, and stone models were compared to the master model to calculate the mean absolute surface deviation for mandibular teeth, maxillary teeth, and palate.

RESULTS

For mandibular teeth, the PVS trueness was only significantly better than the Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.05). In maxillary teeth, the PVS trueness was significantly better than all IOSs (p < 0.05-0.001); the stone trueness was significantly better than Emerald S (p < 0.01), Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.01). In the palate, PVS and stone trueness were significantly lower than the iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < p < 0.01). Stone trueness was significantly lower than the Medit i700 (p < 0.05). The precision in the palate was significantly lower for PVS and stone than for Emerald S (p < 0.01, p < 0.05), iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01, p < 0.01), Primescan (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), and Trios 4 (p < 0.001, p < 0.01). Significant differences in trueness between the IOSs were observed only in the mandibular teeth. The Medit i700 performed worse than Emerald S (p < 0.01) and iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01). For mandibular teeth, the Medit i700 was significantly more precise than Primescan (p < 0.01) and the Emerald S (p < 0.05). The Trios 4 was significantly less precise than Emerald S (p < 0.05). The precision of Medit i700 was significantly worse than iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) for maxillary teeth, as well as the Primescan (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < 0.05) for the palate.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, indirectly digitized models from PVS impressions had higher trueness than IOS for maxillary teeth; precision between the two methods was similar. IOS was more accurate for palatal tissues. The differences in trueness and precision for mandibular teeth between the various techniques were negligible.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

All investigated IOSs and indirect digitization could be used for complete arch scanning in mandibular and maxillary dentate arches. However, direct optical digitization is preferable for the palate due to the low accuracy of physical impression techniques for soft tissues.

The accuracy of intra-oral scanners in full arch implant rehabilitation: a narrative review

This narrative review aims to study the accuracy of different intra-oral scanner (IOS) devices already available on the market. The accuracy emerged during in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo studies made with IOS devices during the scan of a full arch implant rehabilitation that have been analysed to evaluate which device may be the most suitable in this clinical situation. The literature review was performed by searching topics and keywords using the PubMed and Medline databases, for example, 'digital workflow', 'full arch', 'full arch implant rehabilitation' and 'accuracy of IOS'. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies were: correct IMRAD (introduction, methods, results and discussion) structure; article with clear and detailed objectives; consistency of the articles with the purpose of the review; two-year range from the year of publication of the article; reproducible materials and methods; and correct follow-up. Most of the intra-oral scanners employed in vitro provided acceptable accuracy (below a threshold of 150 μm). The main parameters identified for their influence on precision were interim plant distance, body scan design, scanning pattern and operator experience. Even though literature is limited, significant differences emerged between the different models of intra-oral scanners evaluated in the studies considered within this review.

Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of four digital scanning methods in duplicating a complete denture.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four scanning methods were used: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Straumann desktop scanner (DS), Trios intraoral scanner (TIO), and Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (VVIO). Each method was used to duplicate all the surfaces of a printed complete denture. The denture was scanned 10 times in each group. The trueness (in root mean square, RMS) and precision (in standard deviation, SD) were calculated by comparing the combined dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to test statistical differences (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

For the scanning accuracy of the whole denture, CBCT showed the highest RMS (0.249 ± 0.020 mm) and lowest trueness than DS (0.124 ± 0.014 mm p < 0.001), TIO (0.131 ± 0.006 mm p < 0.001), and VVIO (0.227 ± 0.020 mm p = 0.017), while DS and TIO showed smaller RMS than VVIO (p < 0.001). For the trueness of dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces, CBCT also showed the highest mean RMS and lowest trueness among all groups (p < 0.001). DS and TIO had smaller mean RMS and higher trueness among all groups in all surfaces (p < 0.001, except VVIO in intaglio surface, p > 0.05). TIO had significantly lower within-group variability of RMS and highest precision compared to DS (p = 0.013), CBCT (p = 0.001), and VVIO (p < 0.001) in the combined surface. For dentition and denture extension surfaces, TIO showed similar within-group variability of RMS with the DS group (p > 0.05) and lower than CBCT and VVIO (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner can duplicate dentures in higher trueness than CBCT and the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner. The Trios 4 intraoral scanner was more precise in the combined surfaces than other scanning methods, while the 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner were more precise in the denture extension surface.

Trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans when different data acquisition methods are used

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of different data acquisition methods on the trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans.

METHODS

An edentulous polyurethane master mandibular model with 6 implants was digitized by using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80 5MP) to obtain a master standard tessellation language (MSTL) file. The master model was also digitized by using either direct digital workflow with a stereoscopic camera (iCam 4D (IM)) or intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan (PS) and Trios 4 (T4)) or indirect digital workflow with laboratory scanners (inEos X5 (X5) and CARES 7 (S7)) to obtain test-scan STLs (n = 10). All STL files were imported into a metrology-grade analysis software (Geomagic Control X 2020.1) and test-scan STLs were superimposed over MSTL. The root mean square method was used to calculate surface deviations, while angular deviations were also calculated. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests were used to evaluate measured deviations (surface and angular) for trueness and precision (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

X5 and S7 had the lowest, and IM had the highest surface deviations (P ≤ .036). The angular deviations of PS were lower than those of X5, S7, and IM (P ≤ .008). When surface deviations were considered, T4 had the lowest precision among tested scanners (P ≤ .002), and the scans of IM had higher precision than those of PS (P = .003). Scanner type did not affect the precision of the scans when angular deviations were considered (P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

The data acquisition method affected the trueness (surface and angular deviations) and precision (surface deviations) of mandibular complete-arch implant scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested data acquisition methods may be feasible to digitize mandibular complete-arch implants considering the deviations of the scans, which were in the range of previously reported thresholds, and the high precision of scans. However, the frameworks fabricated with the direct digital workflow that involves the scans of the stereoscopic camera might require more adjustments than those fabricated by using the scans of other tested scanners.

Accuracy of single-implant digital impression with various scanbody exposure levels at anterior and posterior regions

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of the exposure heights of the scanbody on the accuracy of digital implant impressions at different positions.

METHODS

Four maxillary master models with one analog at the anterior and posterior region were fabricated by a 3-dimensional (3D) printer. The analogs were submerged from the gingival margin to ensure four exposure heights of the scanbody: 10, 8, 6, and 4 mm. . The master models were then scanned with D2000 dental laboratory scanner as the reference models. An intraoral scanner obtained ten test models for each group. After aligning the scanbody library file, the related files were imported into inspection software for superimposition by a local fit algorithm based on the adjacent teeth.

RESULTS

3D trueness was significantly decreased at 6 and 4 mm scanbody exposure at the anterior region. In comparison, a significant decrease was only seen at 4 mm scanbody exposure at the posterior region. 3D precision was significantly decreased at 4 mm scanbody exposure at both anterior and posterior regions.

CONCLUSION

The exposure height of the scanbody influenced the accuracy of the digital implant impression, according to the implant positions. Scanbody exposure of less than 6 mm at the anterior region and 4 mm scanbody exposure at the posterior region could lead to increased deviations, but still in the tolerance range.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The scanbody exposure height less than 6 mm at the anterior region and 4 mm scanbody exposure height at the posterior region could lead to significantly increased deviations. Though these deviations may be still in the clinically acceptable range, caution should be taken.

In vitro study of the accuracy and efficiency of wireless intraoral scanners at various battery levels

OBJECTIVES

To determine the trueness and precision of 2 wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) under various battery levels, and assess scanning efficiency.

METHODS

A maxillary cast with 4 metal spheres attached was fabricated. Two wireless IOSs (TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4) were evaluated under 3 battery levels (1-30%, 31-60%, and 61-100%; n = 30). Six horizontal distances and 1 vertical distance were measured between 4 spherical centers and 1 generated plane. The distance deviations were determined with a coordinate-measuring machine data set. Kruskal-Wallis and Levene tests were used to analyze trueness and precision. Scan time and the number of three-dimensional (3D) images captured were analyzed by using a 2-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

In terms of trueness and precision, no significant differences were found at various battery levels over the majority of the measured distances. TRIOS 4 demonstrated better trueness than TRIOS 3 for cross-arch scan. The 61-100% battery level resulted in the shortest scan time and the least number of 3D images captured (p < 0.001). Scan time and number of 3D images captured were strongly correlated for TRIOS 3 (r = 0.66) and TRIOS 4 (r = 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in battery level had no impact on the trueness and precision of TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4. High battery level IOSs resulted in faster scans and fewer 3D images captured with less storage space. TRIOS 4 scanned faster, captured fewer images, and demonstrated better trueness than TRIOS 3.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although all battery levels of wireless IOSs provide comparable trueness and precision, a wireless IOS with a high battery level is more time efficient than one with a low battery level in complete-arch scan.

Accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners versus a desktop scanner

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and a desktop scanner.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complete arch implant-supported interim prosthesis was designed and milled in polymethylmethacrylate. Six reverse scanbodies (ScAnalog) were connected to the implant-prosthetic connections and twenty scans were made extraorally using four IOS devices (TRIOS 3, TRIOS 5, Primescan v.5.2, Medit i700W) and one desktop scanner (E4 RED). A coordinate machine (ATOS Q GOM) was used to assess the milling distortion. The scanbody positions were compared to the reference CAD design using metrology software. Linear and angular measurements per implant-prosthetic connection were considered for trueness and precision. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test.

RESULTS

Trueness values were 118.14 ± 25.49 µm for TRIOS 3, 84.62 µm ±19.10 for TRIOS 5, 106.39 ± 27.58 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 120.25 ± 27.44 µm for Medit i700W and 65.36 ± 4.66 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in mean trueness values were found among IOS and E4 RED. Precision values were 108 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 3, 86 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 5, 104 ± 55 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 90 ± 54 µm for Medit i700W and 18 ± 11 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in precision were found between IOS and E4 RED.

CONCLUSIONS

A chairside reverse scanbody workflow with IOS remains less accurate compared to similar workflow with a desktop scanner.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A chairside reverse scanbody workflow is a valuable alternative but the IOS device should be selected with caution because in the present study, only TRIOS5 was capable to achieve an accuracy below the clinical acceptable thresholds. The use of a desktop scanner remains the best choice for this clinical workflow. Additionally, the milling distortion of the interim prosthesis plays a major role in this reverse scanbody workflow and should be kept as low as possible.

A Comprehensive Review of Factors That Influence the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have become increasingly popular in the field of dentistry for capturing accurate digital impressions of patients' teeth and oral structures. This study investigates the various factors influencing their accuracy. An extensive search of scholarly literature was carried out via PubMed, utilizing appropriate keywords. Factors evaluated in the included studies were categorized into three primary divisions: those related to the operator, the patient, and the IOS itself. The analysis demonstrated that the accuracy of intraoral scanning is influenced by various factors such as scanner selection, operator skill, calibration, patient's oral anatomy, ambient conditions, and scanning aids. Maintaining updated software and understanding factors beyond scanner resolution are crucial for optimal accuracy. Conversely, smaller IOS tips, fast scanning speeds, and specific scanning patterns compromise the accuracy and precision. By understanding these factors, dental professionals can make more informed decisions and enhance the accuracy of IOSs, leading to improved final dental restorations.

Influence of the dental arch and number of cutting-off and rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of implant scans in partially edentulous situations

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of the dental arch and cutting-off and rescanning procedures on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans in partially edentulous arches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary and a mandibular partially edentulous typodont with implant abutment analogs placed in the right and left first molar and right central incisor sites were digitized to create reference models by using an industrial optical scanner (7 Series Desktop Scanner; Dentalwings). Two experimental groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S): the Maxillary group (Mx) and the Mandibular group (Mb). Four subgroups were generated depending on the number of rescanned mesh holes: No holes (Mx-G0, Mb-G0), 1 hole (Mx-G1, Mb-G1), 2 holes (Mx-G2, Mb-G2) and 3 holes (Mx-G3, Mb-G3). A 3-dimensional metrology software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems) was used to measure the difference between the reference and the experimental scans computing the root mean square (RMS) error calculation. Two-way ANOVA and a post-hoc Tukey test were used to analyze the trueness data (α=0.05). Levene test was used to evaluate the prevision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The Mx group obtained a trueness mean value of 54 ± 17 µm and a mean precision value of 54 ± 17 µm, while the Mb group presented a trueness mean value of 67 ± 23 µm and a mean precision value of 66 ± 22 µm. The Mx group demonstrated significantly better trueness than the Mb group (P<.001). The G0 and G1 subgroups had the highest trueness values among the subgroups tested. No significant difference was observed between G0 and G1, G1 and G2, and G2 and G3 subgroups in trueness and precision. However, the G0 had significantly better trueness and precision values compared to G2 and G3 subgroups. In addition, the G1 had significantly better trueness values than the G3 subgroup. However, the Levene test revealed no difference in the precision mean values among the subgroups tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant scanning trueness was affected by the dental arch and the number of rescanned mesh holes using the IOS tested. A higher number of rescanned mesh holes decreased the scanning trueness. The stitching algorithm of the IOS software tested after the mesh hole scan demonstrated a significant error, especially when multiples mesh holes are involved in the same arch.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Given that cutting-off and rescanning techniques can reduce trueness, clinicians should consider whether these techniques are necessary in complete digital workflows. This is particularly important when fabricating multiple single implant-supported restorations in the same arch.

Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital methods such as intraoral scanners for recording the location of implants supporting complete arch prostheses have limitations. Photogrammetry devices should be able to digitize implant positions accurately, but standardized comparisons between different digital acquisition methods are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the repeatability of different digital acquisition methods for complete arch prostheses supported by 6 and 4 implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A master cast was created with 6 and 4 dental implants with multiunit abutments to obtain the master digital casts. The evaluated devices were the industrial high-resolution 12-megapixel scanner (reference) Atos Compact Scan 12M (GOM), the laboratory scanners D2000 (3Shape A/S) and S900 Arti (Zirkonzahn), the photogrammetry devices iCam (iMetric4D) and PIC (PIC Dental), and the intraoral scanners TRIOS 3 (3Shape A/S) and iTero Element 5D (Align Technology). The resulting files were imported to a computer-aided design software program (exocad GmbH) to obtain the implant replicas as standard tessellation language (STL) files. These files were imported into a software program (Geomagic Control X) and superimposed per group through the best-fit algorithm to determine repeatability, defined as the closeness of agreement between each group's scanned results as root mean square (RMS) values. The normality of distribution was tested by the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test with adjustment with the Bonferroni correction method was used accordingly (α=.05).

RESULTS

The repeatability means and 95% confidence intervals for the 4 implant scans were: 1.07 µm (0.86; 1.29) for GOM, 2.05 µm (1.89; 2.21) for D2000, 3.61 µm (3.23; 3.99) for S900, 7.01 µm (6.11; 7.91) for iCam, 5.18 µm (4.6; 5.76) for PIC, 20.52 µm (18.33; 22.72) for TRIOS3, and 20.5 µm (17.37; 23.63) for iTero. Statistically significant differences were found between devices, except for iCam versus PIC, GOM versus S900, iCam versus D2000, PIC versus D2000, and TRIOS3 versus iTero. The repeatability means and 95% confidence intervals for the 6 implant groups were: 1.36 µm (1.08; 1.65) for GOM, 3.17 µm (3.01; 3.33) for D2000, 2.15 µm (2.04; 2.25) for S900, 8.67 µm (8.06; 9.28) for iCam, 13.88 µm (12.62; 15.14) for PIC, 40.32 µm (36.29; 44.36) for TRIOS3, and 38.86 µm (34.01; 43.71) for iTero. Statistically significant differences were detected between devices, except for S900 versus GOM, PIC versus iCam, and iTero versus TRIOS 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that photogrammetry could be a suitable alternative for recording implant locations of complete arch prostheses supported by 4 or 6 implants, with better repeatability than intraoral scanners. Increasing the number of implants decreased the repeatability of every device tested except the laboratory scanners.

Predictability of intraoral scanner error for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to analyze the behaviors of three intraoral scanners (IOSs): evaluating the interdistance and axial inclination discrepancies in full-arch scans, predictable errors were searched.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six edentulous sample models with variable numbers of dental implants were used; reference data were obtained with a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM). Each IOS (i.e., Primescan, CS3600, and Trios3) performed 10 scans per model (180 total scans). The origin of each scan body was used as a reference point to measure interdistance lengths and axial inclinations. Precision and trueness of interdistance measurements and axial inclinations were evaluated to address error predictability. Bland-Altman analysis, followed by linear regression analysis and Friedman's test (plus Dunn's post hoc correction), was performed to evaluate the precision and trueness.

RESULTS

Regarding interdistance, Primescan showed the best precision (mean ± SD: 0.047 ± 0.020 mm), while Trios3 underestimated the reference value more than the others (p < 0.001) and had the worst performance (mean ± SD: -0.079 ± 0.048 mm). Concerning the inclination angle, Primescan and Trios3 tended to overestimate angle values, while CS3600 underestimated them. Primescan had fewer inclination angle outliers, but it tended to add 0.4-0.6° to the measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

IOSs showed predictable errors: they tended to overestimate or underestimate linear measurements and axial inclinations of scan bodies, one added 0.4-0.6° to the angle inclination values. In particular, they showed heteroscedasticity, a behavior probably related to the software or the device itself.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

IOSs showed predictable errors that could affect clinical success. When performing a scan or choosing a scanner, clinicians should clearly know their behaviors.

Scanning accuracy and scanning area discrepancies of intraoral digital scans acquired at varying scanning distances and angulations among 4 different intraoral scanners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however, the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances and angulations among IOSs remain uncertain.

PURPOSE

The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4, CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance. In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance, and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal-Wallis and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05).

RESULTS

IOS (P<.001), scanning distance (P<.001), and scanning angle (P<.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (P<.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (P<.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (P<.001). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (P<.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (P<.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (P>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance, and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.

In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners.

METHODS

Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners.

RESULTS

The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4μm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7μm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 μm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 μm) and Medit T710 (13-16 μm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31μm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 μm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 μm), and Medit T710 (20-23 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.

The discriminative potential of palatal geometric analysis for sex discrimination and human identification

Previous 3D superimposition studies of digital scans of the human palate, using geometric and surface morphology comparisons, have shown its usefulness in assisting in the identification process, including its ability to distinguish identical twins. This study aimed to evaluate the discriminative potential when only simple geometric analysis is used. Its aim is not only to determine if geometric comparison alone is sufficient not only to assist in identification but if it supports the hypothesis of assisting in sex discrimination when no other comparative data is available. The palates of 64 monozygotic (M.Z.T.) and 39 dizygotic (D.Z.T.) twins were digitized three times using a scanner. Digital smoothing was used to remove the rugae, and palatal height, depth, and width were measured. The study confirmed that the smoothing function had little effect on the discriminatory function since the Mean Absolute Distance (MAD) between M.Z.T. (0.430 ± 0.018 mm versus 0.425 ± 0.022 mm p = 0.061) or D.Z.T. (0.621 ± 0.058 mm versus 0.586 ± 0.053 mm, p = 0.284) scans show little change. By combining the height, depth, and width into a discriminative function, the sex correctly correlated 83.9% of the time, identity by 91.2% sensitivity, and twining by 68.5%. The difference in the 3D palatal model between twin siblings is primarily due to palate geometrics. Since geometric comparison requires far less computation time, geometric comparison alone can be used as an adjunct metric for limiting the possible matches in a dental 3D database in determining both sex and identity, especially if no other evidence is available.

In Vivo Analysis of Intraoral Scanner Precision Using Open-Source 3D Software

Intraoral three-dimensional scanning techniques could be used to improve dental practice, leading to an improved overall quality of the prosthetic devices and improved comfort for the patient. An accurate and precise intraoral scanner allows proper diagnosis, follow-up evaluation, and prosthesis application. The aim of this research is to evaluate the precision of an intraoral scanners (Medit i500, Medit Corp., Seoul, Korea), using open-source software in the digital workflow. The precision was compared through repetitions of the scanning process of the upper dental arch, following superimpositions in the whole 3D arch area. It was possible to display colorimetric maps for qualitative comparison, and the deviations of the values were classified as clinically acceptable. Within the limitation of this study, the clinically acceptable in vivo frequency of points’ deviation, or the precision, was obtained in 98.8% ± 1.4%; therefore, the use of open-source software can be a viable option in the digital workflow, improving patient follow ups with the 3D model superimposition.

Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of four types of artificial landmarks and three different scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans.

METHODS

An edentulous mandibular model with 4 dental implants (Osstem) was prepared as the master reference model (MRM) and scanned with laboratory scanner (E4 Lab Scanner®). Then, the model was modified with four artificial landmarks: (i) CON- unmodified MRM, (ii) PIP- pressure-indicating paste brushed over the edentulous ridge, (iii) LD- liquid dam markers placed on the edentulous ridge, and (iv) FL- floss tied with pattern resin between the scan bodies. In each group, the modified model was scanned with three different scanning patterns: (i) LB- linguo-buccal pattern, (ii) SS- s-shaped pattern, and (iii) QU- quadrant pattern (n = 10/subgroup) using an intraoral scanner (Trios®4). Scans in STL format were exported and superimposed with MRM file using an inspection software (Geomagic Control X). Accuracy (trueness and precision) was evaluated by calculating the deviation, root mean square (RMS). Results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences in accuracy values were found across different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns as the LD artificial landmark with QU pattern showed the highest accuracy. The lowest accuracy was recorded in CON with LB pattern, PIP artificial landmark with LB pattern, and FL artificial landmark with SS pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

The artificial landmarks and scanning patterns had a significant effect on the accuracy of the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

When performing complete-arch digital scans with four dental implants, clinicians should select proper artificial landmark and scanning pattern, as the artificial landmark and scanning pattern significantly affect the accuracy of the scan when using an intraoral scanner. ®.

A Point-of-Care Digital Workflow for 3D Printed Passive Presurgical Orthopedic Plates in Cleft Care

Cleft lip and palate are one of the most common congenital craniofacial malformations. As an initial treatment, presurgical orthopedics is considered standard treatment at many cleft centers. Digital impressions are becoming feasible in cleft care. Computer-aided design (CAD) and three-dimensional (3D) printing are manufacturing standards in dentistry. The assimilation of these technologies has the potential to alter the traditional workflow for the fabrication of customized presurgical orthopedic plates. We present a digital workflow comprising three steps: 3D digital image acquisition with an intraoral scanner, open-source CAD modeling, and point-of-care 3D printing for the fabrication of personalized passive presurgical plates for newborns with cleft lip and palate. The digital workflow resulted in patient-related benefits, such as no risk of airway obstruction with quicker data acquisition (range 1–2.5 min). Throughput time was higher in the digital workflow 260–350 min compared to 135 min in the conventional workflow. The manual and personal intervention time was reduced from 135 min to 60 min. We show a clinically useful digital workflow for presurgical plates in cleft treatment. Once care providers overcome procurement costs, digital impressions, and point-of-care 3D printing will simplify these workflows and have the potential to become standard for cleft care.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment-scan body system depending on the scan pattern and implant location: an in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of scan pattern and the location of the implant on the trueness and precision of implant scans when the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system is used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A partially edentulous maxillary model with CHA-SBs secured on implants at 3 different sites in the left quadrant (central incisor, first premolar, and first molar) was fabricated. The model was scanned with an industrial light scanner to generate a master reference model (MRM) file. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) was used to perform the test scans (n=8) with 4 different scan patterns (SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4) with an intraoral scanner. The test scans were superimposed over the MRM file with a metrology software to calculate the distance deviations of the CHA-SB system. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests for accuracy (α=.05).

RESULTS

Trueness (P=.001) and precision (P=.018) were significantly affected by the interaction between the scan pattern and implant location. The implant located at the central incisor site (56.7 ±35.9, 36.2 ±18.6) had higher trueness than that of located at the premolar site (94.1 ±20.4, 100.3 ±20) when SP2 (P=.037) and SP4 (P=.002) were used. The implant at the molar site (71.9 ±25.7, 147.2 ±49.7) had trueness either similar to (when SP2 was used, P≥.276) or lower than (when SP4 was used, P≤.024) those of others. Scans of the central incisor and premolar implants had the lowest trueness when scanned with SP1 (P≤.009), while the scans of molar implant showed higher trueness when performed by using SP2 and SP3 when compared with SP4 (P≤.005). When SP4 was used, the implant at the molar site had lower precision (43 ±18.9) than the implants located at the central incisor (14.1 ±11) and premolar sites (15.4 ±11.3) (P=.002). Scan patterns affected the scan precision of central incisor implant (P=.009), as SP4 (14.1 ±11) led to a higher precision than SP1 (47.7 ±27) (P=.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The scan accuracy of combined healing abutment-scan body system was affected by scan pattern and implant location. SP1, which involved palatal and rotational scans resulted in the lowest trueness for central incisor and premolar implants, while the scans of the central incisor implant showed the highest trueness among different sites when SP4 was used. However, the scan pattern and implant site had a minor effect on precision. Scan precision at different implant sites only differed when SP4 was used, which resulted in the lowest precision for molar implant.

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the accuracy of different laboratory scanners (LS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two maxillary models that are designed to receive an all-on-four implant retained prosthesis were fabricated then scanned using five different LS. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30° and group 2; 45°). Each group was then subdivided into five subgroups according to the type of LS, subgroup T; Medit T710, subgroup I; IneosX5, subgroup E; 3ShapeE4, subgroup A; Autoscan DS-Mix, and subgroup M; Ceramill Map600. An industrial 3D scanner was used as reference scanner, then each model was scanned with 5 LS 10 times. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic 3D analysis software.

RESULTS

Both scanner type and implant angle had a significant effect on the trueness (p < 0.001). Significant interaction was found between the scanner type and implant angle (p < 0.001). For scanner type tukeys post hoc test revealed highest trueness with the 3Shape E4 (21.3 ± 2.1) and the medit T710 (22.6 ± 2.1) and least trueness with the shining 3D autoscan ds-mix (33.8 ± 3.0). Significantly better trueness was observed with the 30° than the 45° angle. Regarding precision, two-way ANOVA revealed significant effect of the scanner type only (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the 3Shape E4, medit T710, Ineos X5, and the Ceramill map600. However, all showed significantly higher precision values when compared to shining 3D autoscan ds-mix.

CONCLUSIONS

All tested scanners showed results within the clinically acceptable range with 3ShapeE4 and Medit T710 showing the highest accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested scanners can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis.

Evaluation of the stability of the palatal rugae using the three-dimensional superimposition technique following orthodontic treatment

OBJECTIVES

To determine the uniqueness and stability of the palatal rugae after orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

Cast models of untreated subjects (n=50) were obtained twice at intervals of 8-30 months. Cast models of patients who received non-extraction (n=50) and extraction (n=50) orthodontic treatment were obtained before and after treatment at intervals of 11-41 months and 14-49 months, respectively. All 300 cast models were scanned digitally. The palatal rugae were manually extracted and transformed into 3D point clouds using reverse engineering software. An iterative closest point (ICP) registration algorithm based on correntropy was applied, and the minimum point-to-point root mean square (RMS) distances were calculated to analyze the deviation of palatal rugae for scans of the same subject (intrasubject deviation [ISD]) and between different subjects (between-subject deviation [BSD]). Differences in ISD between each group and the deviation between ISD and BSD of all 150 subjects were evaluated.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found in the 150 ISD and 1225 BSD in each group, as well as the 150 ISD and 11175 BSD across all groups. The mean values of ISD in untreated, non-extraction and extraction group were 0.178, 0.229 and 0.333 mm, respectively. When the first ruga was excluded in the extraction group, the mean ISD decreased to 0.241 mm, which was not significantly different from that in the non-extraction group (p=0.314).

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic treatment can influence the palatal rugae, especially in cases of extraction. Furthermore, variation mainly existed in the first ruga in cases of extraction. However, palatal rugae are still unique and may be used as a supplementary tool for individual identification.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This study indicates that palatal rugae might be applied in the evaluation of orthodontic tooth movement and forensic individual identification. The registration algorithm based on correntropy provides a credible, precise, and convenient method for palatal rugae superimposition.

In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level. Methods: One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with Primescan v5.1 (PS51), Primescan v5.2 (PS52), Trios 3 (T3), and Trios 4 (T4). Additionally, conventional impressions (A) were made, poured in gypsum, and digitized using a lab scanner (IScan D104i). A coordinate machine (Atos, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany) was used to generate the reference scan of both casts. For all scans, the position of the implants was calculated and matched with the reference scan. Angular and coronal measurements per implant were considered for trueness and precision. Results: For the implant-level model, PS52 performed significantly better in terms of trueness and precision compared to all other impressions, except for the angular trueness of A (p = 0.072) and the coronal trueness of PS51 (p = 1.000). For the abutment-level model, PS52 also performed significantly better than all other impressions, except for the coronal trueness and precision of A (p = 1.000). Conclusions: Digital impressions for full-arch implant supported prostheses can be as accurate as conventional impressions, depending on the intra-oral scanner and software. Overall, abutment level impressions were more accurate compared to implant level impressions.

Congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file: an in vitro analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB was fixed to an implant at the right first molar position in a dentate mandibular model and digitized by using 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (OC), Primescan (PS), and Virtuo Vivo (VV)] (n=8) and an industrial grade optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) (n=1) to generate standard tessellation language (STL) files of the test scans (CHA-SB-STLs) and the master reference model scan (MRM-STL). A reverse engineering software (Studio Geomagic X) was used to superimpose the proprietary library file of the CHASB over the generated STL files. Root mean square (RMS) values representing the deviations between the library file and the superimposed STL files were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA (α=.05). Qualitative analysis of the deviations was performed by visual inspection.

RESULTS

Differences between the congruence of the library file and the CHA-SB scans among different IOSs were nonsignificant (F=1.619, df= 3, P = .207). The single best result was 29 ±28.9 µm for OC, 30.8 ±29.6 µm for VV, 35.6 ±35.5 µm for T3, and 39.5 ±39.2 µm for PS, which were all above the deviation value of the scan performed by using the industrial-grade scanner (23.2 ±23.2 µm).

CONCLUSION

The dimensional congruence between the library file and the standard tessellation language file of the combined healing abutment-scan body system scans was similar when intraoral scanners with different acquisition technologies were used to scan a model with an implant.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scans of the tested intraoral scanners may result in crowns with similar positional accuracy, given the similarities in congruence of their scans with the library file.

Effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans using a combined healing abutment-scan body system

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans conducted with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB system was fixed on implants at left central incisor, first premolar, and first molar sites in a dentate maxillary model. An industrial optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) was utilized to scan and generate a reference model (RM). The model was scanned by three operators (n = 8) using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). A software (GOM Inspect) was used to superimpose IOS test scans over RM and calculations (distance and angular deviations) were carried out to evaluate the accuracy of the scans. Data were compared with a 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were employed to resolve significant interactions for trueness and precision (α = .05).

RESULTS

Implant location affected the trueness (P ≤ .001) and the precision (P ≤ .020) (distance and angular deviations). The scans of the implant at the central incisor site had the highest trueness (distance and angular deviations) (P ≤ .016). The scans of the implant at molar site had the lowest precision (distance deviation data) (P ≤ .012). The scans of the implant at premolar site had lower precision (angular deviation data) than the scans of the implant at central incisor site (P = .016). Operators' effect on the accuracy of scans was not significant (P ≥  .051).

CONCLUSION

Implant location affected the scan accuracy of the combined healing abutment-scan body system. The scans of the implant at central incisor site had high trueness. The posterior the implant location, the lower was the precision of the scans. The accuracy of scans of different operators was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Higher deviations found in scans of posterior maxilla compared with those in the anterior region may require increased chairside adjustments when crowns are to be fabricated using the scans of the tested healing abutment-scan body system. However, clinical studies are necessary to corroborate the findings.

Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: AAn in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system using different intraoral scanners.

METHODS

A partially edentulous model with an implant was fabricated, and a CHA-SB system was secured on the implant. The model was scanned using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80) and a master reference model was generated (MRM). The model was also scanned with 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [(Virtuo Vivo (VV), TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (CO), and Primescan (PS)]. Test scans (n = 8) were superimposed over the MRM using the best fit algorithm (GOM Inspect 2018; GOM GmbH). After superimpositions, distance and angular deviations at selected areas on CHA-SB system were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests for trueness and precision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The differences in trueness (distance deviations) among tested IOSs were nonsignificant (P=.652). VV presented the highest angular deviations (P ≤.031), and the angular deviations in other IOS scans were not found different (P ≥.378). The precision of distance deviation data was not significantly different among scanners (P=.052). For the precision of angular deviation data, significant differences were found among IOSs (P=.002). Compared with PS (P=.007) and T3 (P=.014), VV had significantly lower precision, which was not significantly different than that of CO (P=.815).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy (angular deviation) of scans of a combined healing abutment-scan body system on a single implant varied depending on the IOS. VirtuoVivo scans had the lowest accuracy in terms of angular deviations. When the distance deviation data were considered, scan accuracy of scanners was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A recently introduced combined healing abutment-scan body system combines the acquisition of both the implant and the soft tissue. When different intraoral scanners scan the combined healing abutment-scan body system, the scan accuracy may vary.