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

Digital measurement method for comparing the absolute marginal discrepancy of three-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses fabricated using conventional and digital technologies

Digital Evaluation of Trueness and Precision of Modern Impression Materials in Implant- Retained Mandibular Overdentures

Effect of technique and impression material on the vertical misfit of a screw-retained, three-unit implant bridge: An in vitro study

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

Comparison of marginal and internal fit of three-unit implant-supported fixed prosthetic substructures fabricated using CAD/CAM systems

Effect of Different Impression Techniques on Marginal Fit of Restoration – An In Vitro Study

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

Digital analysis of fabrication accuracy and fit in additively and subtractively manufactured implant-supported fixed complete dentures

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

Digital evaluation of a simplified technique for resin splinting used for multiunit implant restoration impressions: An in-vitro comparative study

Accuracy of Mandibular Removable Partial Denture Frameworks Fabricated by 3D Printing and Conventional Techniques

Marginal discrepancy of 3-unit Co-Cr metal copings fabricated with additive and subtractive manners: A comparative study

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

Comparison of the Accuracy of Fixture-Level Implant Impression Making with Different Splinting Techniques

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

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

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

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

Effect of lamination layer thickness and abutment preparation on the fit of Co-Cr multi-unit prostheses fabricated by additive manufacturing: An in vitro study

Retention Evaluation of Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdenture Using Two Different Attachment Systems: An in Vitro Study