Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct;63(4):396-403.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002. Epub 2019 May 7.

Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners

Affiliations

Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners

Adolfo Di Fiore et al. J Prosthodont Res. 2019 Oct.

Abstract

Purpose: Compare the accuracy of intraoral digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis acquired with eight different intraoral scanner (Ios).

Methods: A polymethyl methacrylate acrylic model of an edentulous mandible with six scan-abutment was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Eight different Ios were used to generate digital impression: True Definition, Trios, Cerec Omnicam, 3D progress, CS3500, CS3600, Planmeca Emelard and Dental Wings. Fifteen digital impressions were made. A software called "Scan-abut" was developed to analyse and compare the digital impression with the master model, obtaining the scanning accuracy. The three-dimensional (3D) position and distance analysis were performed.

Results: Mean value of the 3D position analysis showed that the True Definition (31 μm ± 8 μm) and Trios (32 μm ± 5 μm) have the best performance of the group. The Cerec Omnicam (71 μm ± 55 μm), CS3600 (61 μm ± 14 μm) have an average performance. The CS3500 (107 μm ± 28 μm) and Planmeca Emelard (101 μm ± 38 μm) present a middle-low performance, while the 3D progress (344 μm ± 121 μm) and Dental Wings (148 μm ± 64 μm) show the low performance. The 3D distance analysis showed a good linear relationship between the errors and scan-abutment distance only with the True Definition and CS3600.

Conclusions: Not all scanners are suitable for digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and the weight of the output files is independent from the accuracy of the Ios.

Keywords: Accuracy; Dental implant; Digital impression; Full arch; Intraoral scanner.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources