PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of two digital impression systems based on the same technology but different postprocessing correction modes of customized software, with consideration of several clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary master model with six implants located in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions was fitted with six cylindrical scan bodies. Scan bodies were placed at different angulations or depths apical to the gingiva. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed scans with either 3D Progress (MHT) or ZFX Intrascan (Zimmer Dental). Five different distances between implants (scan bodies) were measured, yielding five data points per impression and 100 per impression system. Measurements made with a high-accuracy three-dimensional coordinate measuring machine (CMM) of the master model acted as the true values. The values obtained from the digital impressions were subtracted from the CMM values to identify the deviations. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and implant angulation and depth were compared statistically. RESULTS: Experience of the operator, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in deviation from the true values with both 3D Progress and ZFX Intrascan. Accuracy in the first scanned quadrant was significantly better with 3D Progress, but ZFX Intrascan presented better accuracy in the full arch. CONCLUSION: Neither of the two systems tested would be suitable for digital impression of multiple-implant prostheses. Because of the errors, further development of both systems is required.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of two digital impression systems based on the same technology but different postprocessing correction modes of customized software, with consideration of several clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary master model with six implants located in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions was fitted with six cylindrical scan bodies. Scan bodies were placed at different angulations or depths apical to the gingiva. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed scans with either 3D Progress (MHT) or ZFX Intrascan (Zimmer Dental). Five different distances between implants (scan bodies) were measured, yielding five data points per impression and 100 per impression system. Measurements made with a high-accuracy three-dimensional coordinate measuring machine (CMM) of the master model acted as the true values. The values obtained from the digital impressions were subtracted from the CMM values to identify the deviations. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and implant angulation and depth were compared statistically. RESULTS: Experience of the operator, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in deviation from the true values with both 3D Progress and ZFX Intrascan. Accuracy in the first scanned quadrant was significantly better with 3D Progress, but ZFX Intrascan presented better accuracy in the full arch. CONCLUSION: Neither of the two systems tested would be suitable for digital impression of multiple-implant prostheses. Because of the errors, further development of both systems is required.