Abstract:Statement of problem. The accuracy of digital scanning for complete dental arch and implant-supported complete-arch restorations has been reported. However, research addressing the accuracy of digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation is lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning, impression scanning, and cast scanning for complete-arch preparation.Material and methods. Maxillary and mandibular jaw typodonts with 28 teeth prepared for complete crowns were used as reference casts and digitized as reference data sets with a desktop scanner. Three digital scanning methods were applied. First, the reference casts were each scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner to generate the intraoral scanning group data sets. Second, the reference casts were each captured 10 times by using polyvinyl siloxane impression material, and the impressions were scanned with a desktop scanner to generate the impression scanning group data sets. Third, the impressions obtained in the impression scanning group were used to make gypsum casts which were then digitized with a desktop scanner to generate the cast scanning group data sets. Accuracy was determined by trueness and precision. Three-dimensional deviations of the prepared arches and anterior and posterior segments were measured from root mean square values and depicted on color-difference maps. Differences among test groups were analyzed by using a 1-way ANOVA and the post hoc Bonferroni test for normally distributed data or the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction for non-normally distributed data (a=.05).Results. The trueness of the maxillary arch was significantly higher in the impression scanning group than in the cast scanning and intraoral scanning groups (P<.05), but no significant differences were found among the 3 groups of the mandibular arch (P>.05). The precision of both arches was significantly higher in the impression scanning and intraoral scanning groups than in the cast scanning group (P<.05). Color maps showed horizontal symmetrical displacement in the intraoral scanning group relative to the reference data sets and within-group unilateral distal-end distortion. Irregular arch deformations were noted in the impression scanning group, and buccal and occlusal expansion occurred in the anterior-posterior direction in the cast scanning group. Pooled data for anterior teeth indicated that the trueness was lowest in the intraoral scanning group; however, that for the maxillary anterior teeth did not differ, while that for the mandibular anterior teeth differed significantly among groups (P<.05). For the posterior teeth, deviation was the lowest in the impression scanning group, and significant differences were noted in both arches among the 3 groups (P<.05).Conclusions. Of the methods tested, impression scanning was the most accurate for the creation of a digital cast of a complete prepared arch. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1001-8)

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

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

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

In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings

Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An<i> in</i><i> vitro</i> study

Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study

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

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

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

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

Comparison of Different Intraoral Scanners With Prefabricated Aid on Accuracy and Framework Passive Fit of Digital Complete-Arch Implant Impression: An In Vitro Study

Does intra‐oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Accuracy of Three Digital Scanning Methods for Complete-Arch Tooth Preparation: an in Vitro Comparison

Calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) for full‐arch implant impressions: An in vitro comparison to conventional impression, intraoral scan, and intraoral scan with scan‐aid

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

Evaluating the effects of splinting implant scan bodies intraorally on the trueness of complete arch digital scans: A clinical study

Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

Influence of implant reference on the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured by using a photogrammetry system

Comparison of Intraoral Scanning Modes in Three Distinct Full- Arch Digital Implant Impression Scenarios: An In Vitro Study

Influence of scanning protocol on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study