Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
Distance and angulation
In vitro (n = 1)
Lava COS
N/A
CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex
Operator experience affected accuracy. Placement angle and depth did not affect accuracy
Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
Distance and angulation
In vitro (n = 1)
3D Progress
ZFX Intrascan
N/A
CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex
Operator experience, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in accuracy with either scanner
ZFX exhibited higher FA accuracy
Full arched periodontal mandible with 5 implants
3D surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios 2
Monopolyether Splinted/non-splitted implant level
Monopolyether Abutment Level Splint/Non-splint
Iscan iD103 Imetric
IOS resulted in accuracy similar to conventional splinted implant impressions. Both were SS more accurate in non-sparched conventional hits. Implant angles up to 10–15 degrees did not affect IOS accuracy
Full arched periodontal mandible with 6 implants
3D surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios 2 (28 µm)
Lava COS (112 µm)
True Def (35 µm)
Omnicam (61 µm)
N/A
104i Metric
The newer generation IOS performed very well in terms of full bow accuracy
Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
3D surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios 3 (Tr = 67 µm/Pr = 31 µm)
CS3600 (Tr = 60 µm/Pr = 65 µm)
Omnicam (Tr = 66 µm/Pr = 57 µm)
TrueDef (Tr = 106 µm/Pr = 75 µm
N/A
ScanRider
CS3600 had higher SS accuracy compared to other IOS. Accuracy in partial arch is higher for all IOS compared to Full arch condition
Edentulous mandible with 5 implants
3D surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Omnicam (46 µm)
True Def (19 µm)
Single Polyether Splint (Custom Open Disc) (168 µm)
Activity 880 (Smart Optics)
FA IOS digital displays were more accurate compared to conventional FA displays
True Def IOS was ss more accurate than Omnicam IOS
Edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
Distance and angulation
In vitro (n = 1)
True Def (70 µm)
N/A
CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex
The size of the visible scan body affects accuracy. Angulation of scanning bodies does not affect accuracy. Scan distance (full arc) affects accuracy
Jaw made of titanium teeth with 6 implants
Distance
In vitro (n = 1)
True Def (41-82 µm)
N/A
OCMM SmartScope Flash CNC 300
Operator experience did not affect the mean accuracy of IOS FA
Deviations increased with increasing scan duration
2 fully edentulous maxillae with 4 implants each (trilobed and external hex connection)
Distance and angulation
In vitro (n = 2)
Trio 3
Dual PVS mix with custom discs (open and closed disc)
CMM Mistral and CMM Atos Core 80
IOS was ss more accurate than open and closed disc PVS. Open PVS is more accurate than closed PVS. The type of implant connection does not affect the accuracy of IOS. Implant angulation does not affect IOS accuracy
Edentulous jaw with 5 implants
Distance
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios 3 mono (63 µm)
Trios 3 (114 µm)
iTero (41 µm)
Atos Core (19 µm)
N/A
Carl Zeiss CMM
Low accuracy of all IOS for full arch scan
The iTero was statistically the most accurate
The official TRIOS strategy was not used
Models of mandibular teeth with 4 and 6 implants with different angles
Distance
In vitro (n = 4)
TrueDef
PVS double blend
PE single step both with custom open tray
CMM Createch Medical
The accuracy of IOS and conventional impression-making approaches for straight and inclined dental implants was comparable and could be considered clinically for full-arch, multi-implant restorations
Full arch jaw models with 6 and 8 implants
Distance
In vitro (n = 2)
Trios
True def
Ceramil400 map
Ineos X5
D900
Single Polyether Splint (Open Disc)
CMM (Renishaw)
True Def was less accurate
Conventional imps had better accuracy compared to IOS
Reducing the implant distance can help reduce IOS distortion
Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
Distance
In vitro (n = 1)
Trio 3
PVS Aquasil single color, fitted to tray with splint
Contour CMM
Conventional disc impression with open splint produced more accurate impressions compared to IOS
Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
3D surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios 3 (Tr = 46 µm/Pr = 35 µm)
CS3600 (Tr = 44 µm/Pr = 35 µm)
Omnicam (Tr = 70 µm/Pr = 89 µm)
DWIO (Tr = 92 μm/Pr = 111 μm
Emerald (Tr = 66 µm/Pr = 61 µm)
N/A
DOF freedom
Trios3 and CS3600 were SS more accurate in Full arch compared to other IOS
IOS accuracy in FA implants does NOT correlate with IOS resolution
Full denture polyurethane jaw with 4 implants
Distance and angulation
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios
N/A
COMET L3D
The accuracy of FA 4-implants is not affected by including the palate in the scan or not
Model with 6 implants
Distance
In vitro (n = 1)
True definition (21-118 µm) depending on the distance between the implants
Polyether (open tray) not splinted
20-68 µm depending on the distance between the implants
CMM Heningshaw
For adjacent implants (up to 4) both techniques are satisfactory
The greater the distance between the implants, the lower the accuracy of both techniques
Full periodontal PMMA cast of the mandible with 6 scanning bodies
Distance and three-dimensional surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios 3 (32 µm)
True Def (31 µm)
Omnicam (71 µm)
3DProgress (344 µm)
CS3500 (107 µm)
CS3600 (61 µm)
Emerald (101 µm)
DWIO (148 µm)
N/A
SmartScope CMM
Some IOS performed better than others in full-arc scans
The size of the output file is independent of the precision of the IOS
Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
Distance and angulation
In vitro (n = 1)
Trio 3
N/A
ATOS Compact
Scan 5
Implant scanning material significantly affected IOS FA digital impression with peek showing the best results in both linear and angular measurements, followed by titanium, with peek-titanium showing the worst results
The angulation of the implant significantly affected the linear deviations while the position of the implant significantly affected the angular deviation. No significant operator effect was found on IOS accuracy
Edentulous mandible with 6 implants
3D surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Color Trios (31 µm)
Trios color cart (40 µm)
Trios mono cart (43 µm)
3D progress (102 µm)
Omnicam (32 µm)
Bluecam (45 µm)
Apollo DI (37 µm)
E4D (82 µm)
Planscan (345 µm)
Lythos (113 µm)
N/A
ATOS CORE 80
TRIOS, Omnicam, Apollo DI and Bluecam devices are suitable for implant-supported fixed full-arch dental prostheses
Mandibular molar model with 6 implants
3D surface
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios
TrueDef
Omnicam
emerald
N/A
Edge ScanArm (Faro)
No statistical or clinical differences were found between the scanners tested. The 3D map was the best method for observing the data
Maxillary model with 6 implants
Distance
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios 2 (Pr = 29 µm)
TrueDef (Pr = 16 µm)
Omnicam (Pr = 19 µm)
CS3600 (Pr = 21 µm)
Dual PVS fusion (Impression 4) with custom open tray-splint-abutment
(Pr = 21 µm)
D810 (Pr = 3.9 µm)
The range of the scan affected the accuracy of the impressions. Digital impressions for implants should be limited to 3-unit structures on 2 implants
Edentulous maxilla with 4 implants scanned with 5 different body scan sets and 4 different strategies
Distance
In vitro (n = 1)
Trios
N/A
COMET L3D
Scan body design affects accuracy (the smoother the better). Also, soft tissue surface modifications (pressure paste) did not produce more accurate scans
Mandibular periodontal cast with 4 implants and 3 different scanning patterns
3D surface
In vitro
(n = 1)
Trio 3
(Tr = 28-38 µm/(Pr = 27-48 µm)
depending on the scanning body used.)
PVS plaster and light (Silagum) splint (open disc)
(Tr = 25 µm/Pr = 19 µm)
D2000
Conventional splinted open disc impressions were ss more accurate than IOS digital impressions. Experimental design with interconnected SS scanning bodies improved accuracy
Maxillary full arch, edentulous patients with multiple implants (4-6)
3D surface
In vivo (n = 16)
True def
(RMS 162 µm)
4 implants (139 µm)
5 implants (146 µm)
6 implants (185 µm)
Heavy and light PVS (Impression)-open disk technique
7th series (Dental Wings)
The mean IOS deviation was 162 µm which is marginally acceptable for clinical accuracy
Increasing the number of implants tended to increase the global variance in the occurrences of IOS but without SS
