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
. 2022 Apr 13;19(8):4719.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph19084719.

Investigation of the Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners in Mandibular Full-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Adolfo Di Fiore  1 , Lorenzo Graiff  1 , Gianpaolo Savio  2 , Stefano Granata  1 , Michele Basilicata  3 , Patrizio Bollero  3 , Roberto Meneghello  4
Affiliations

Investigation of the Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners in Mandibular Full-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Adolfo Di Fiore et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: We compare the accuracy of new intraoral scanners (IOSs) in full-arch digital implant impressions. Methods: A master model with six scan bodies was milled in poly(methyl methacrylate), measured by using a coordinate measuring machine, and scanned 15 times with four IOSs: PrimeScan, Medit i500, Vatech EZ scan, and iTero. The software was developed to identify the position points on each scan body. The 3D position and distance analysis were performed. Results: The average and ± standard deviation of the 3D position analysis was 29 μm ± 6 μm for PrimeScan, 39 μm ± 6 μm for iTero, 48 μm ± 18 μm for Mediti500, and 118 μm ± 24 μm for Vatech EZ scan (p < 0.05). Conclusions: All IOSs are able to make a digital complete implant impression in vitro according to the average misfit value reported in literature (150 μm); however, the 3D distance analysis showed that only the Primescan and iTero presented negligible systematic error sources.

Keywords: CAD/CAM; accuracy; dental implant; digital impression; full arch; intra-oral scanner.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The design of the master model in a digital environment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
3D distance errors: distance errors [mm] vs. inter-abutment distance [mm] with regression line of errors for each scanner.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ceruso F.M., Barnaba P., Mazzoleni S., Ottria L., Gargari M., Zuccon A., Bruno G., Di Fiore A. Implant-abutment connections on single crowns: A systematic review. Oral Implantol. 2017;10:349–353. doi: 10.11138/orl/2017.10.4.349. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Branemark P.I., Zarb G.A., Albrektsson T. Tissue Integrated Prostheses Chicago. Quintessence Publishing; Batavia, IL, USA: 1985. p. 253.
    1. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implant in the edentulous jaw: A study of treatment from the time of prostheses placement to the first annual check-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 1991;6:270–276. - PubMed
    1. Di Fiore A., Meneghello R., Graiff L., Savio G., Vigolo P., Monaco C., Stellini E. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2019;63:396–403. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee H., So J.S., Hochstedler J.L., Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2008;100:285–291. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources