BACKGROUND: There is a scarce knowledge on the accuracy of intraoral digital impression systems for dental implants. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system considering clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model with six implants (27, 25, 22, 12, 15, 17) was fitted with polyether ether ketone scan bodies. Implant no. 25 was placed with 30° mesial angulation in relation to the vertical plane (y axis), and implant no. 15 was positioned with 30° distal angulation. Implant no. 22 was placed 2 mm and no. 12, 4 mm below the gingiva. Experienced (n = 2) and inexperienced operators (n = 2) performed scanning (Lava Chairside Oral Scanner; 3 M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) at standard and high accuracy mode. Measurements involved five distances (27-25, 27-22, 27-12, 27-15, 27-17). Measurements with high accuracy three-dimensional coordinated measuring machine (CMM) of the master model acted as the true values. The data obtained were subtracted from those of the CMM values. RESULTS: Experience of the operator significantly influenced the results (p = .000). Angulation (p = .195) and depth of implant (p = .399) did not show significant deviation from the true values. The mean difference between standard and high accuracy mode was 90 μm. CONCLUSIONS: With the active wavefront sampling, technology-based digital impression system training seems to be compulsory. Impressions of angulated implants may diminish the accuracy of the impression, yet the results were not significant.
BACKGROUND: There is a scarce knowledge on the accuracy of intraoral digital impression systems for dental implants. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system considering clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model with six implants (27, 25, 22, 12, 15, 17) was fitted with polyether ether ketone scan bodies. Implant no. 25 was placed with 30° mesial angulation in relation to the vertical plane (y axis), and implant no. 15 was positioned with 30° distal angulation. Implant no. 22 was placed 2 mm and no. 12, 4 mm below the gingiva. Experienced (n = 2) and inexperienced operators (n = 2) performed scanning (Lava Chairside Oral Scanner; 3 M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) at standard and high accuracy mode. Measurements involved five distances (27-25, 27-22, 27-12, 27-15, 27-17). Measurements with high accuracy three-dimensional coordinated measuring machine (CMM) of the master model acted as the true values. The data obtained were subtracted from those of the CMM values. RESULTS: Experience of the operator significantly influenced the results (p = .000). Angulation (p = .195) and depth of implant (p = .399) did not show significant deviation from the true values. The mean difference between standard and high accuracy mode was 90 μm. CONCLUSIONS: With the active wavefront sampling, technology-based digital impression system training seems to be compulsory. Impressions of angulated implants may diminish the accuracy of the impression, yet the results were not significant.