Abstract:Statement of problem. Intraoral scanning has benefits over conventional impression making, but whether scanning is sufficiently accurate for multiple implants is unclear.Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of digital scans acquired by using intraoral scanners from a small range to a complete arch with the conventional impression technique and to determine the influence of 2 different evaluation methods (best -fit algorithm versus absolute linear deviation) on the outcomes of accuracy assessment.Material and methods. A mandibular model with 8 implants (A-H) around an edentulous arch was used as the master model. Open-format standard tessellation language (STL) data sets (1 reference file from a highly accurate dental laboratory scanner, 10 files from an intraoral scanner, and 10 files from digitized conventional impressions at room temperature) were imported to a metrology software program, and 5 groups of scanning ranges (AB, FGH, CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH) were identified simulating different clinical situations. Two evaluation methods -root mean square values calculated from the best -fit algorithm and average value of linear discrepancies from absolute linear deviation -were used to describe the trueness values. The impacts of different scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods were tested by using a 3-way ANOVA. The effect of the scanning range on accuracy was further identified with 1-way ANOVA. The paired-sample t test was used to determine the differences of trueness values between the 2 methods in different groups.Results. The trueness values of the implant impressions were significantly affected by different scanning or impression methods (P<.001), evaluation methods (P<.001), and scanning ranges (P<.001) as independent variables. With use of the best -fit algorithm, deviations from the digital scans were significantly greater than those from the conventional impressions in cross -arch situations (groups CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH). With use of the absolute linear deviation method, statistically significant lower accuracy was found when larger areas were encountered (groups BCDEFG and ABCDEFGH). Use of the absolute linear deviation method resulted in a higher mean score of inaccuracy than that from the best -fit algorithm method in most situations.Conclusions. Scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods affected the dimensional accuracy (trueness) of scans or impressions with multiple implants. Digital scans had worse trueness values compared with those made with the conventional splinting open-tray technique when cross-arch implant impressions were acquired. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1017-23)

Accuracy of self-perforating impression tray for maxillary dental implant

Evaluation of Implant Impression Accuracy Using Different Trays and Techniques with a 3D Superimposition Method

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study

Accuracy and feasibility of 3D-printed custom open trays for impressions of multiple implants: A self-controlled clinical trial

Accuracy of Selective Laser Melted Bar retaining mandibular implant-assisted Overdenture: An In vitro Comparison of Different Impression Materials and Techniques

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

Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study

Accuracy of Multi-Implant Impressions Using 3D-Printing Custom Trays and Splinting Versus Conventional Techniques for Complete Arches.

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

Novel Method of Fabricating Individual Trays for Maxillectomy Patients by Computer-Aided Design and Rapid Prototyping.

Clinical evaluation of closed tray impression and intraoral scanning techniques in single posterior tissue-level implant-supported crowns: A self-controlled case study

Design Parameters of Polylactic Acid Custom Trays Manufactured by Fused Deposition Modeling for Partial Edentulism: Consideration of the Accuracy of the Definitive Cast

Accuracy of new implant impression technique using dual arch tray and bite impression coping

Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial

Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Using a Novel Structured Light Scanning System Assisted by a Planar Mirror in the Edentulous Maxilla: an in Vitro Study

Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques in bilateral distal extension cases: a randomized clinical trial

Accuracy of flapless immediate implant placement in anterior maxilla using computer-assisted versus freehand surgery: A cadaver study

In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra‐oral scanning devices

Trueness of Extraoral Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant Impressions—In Vitro Study

Comparative Accuracy of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Workflows for Short Span Implant Supported Fixed Partial Denture Fabrication: An In Vitro Study