PURPOSE: To assess the absolute linear distances of three different intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) using an intraoral scanner compared to a conventional impression in a common clinical model setup with a gap and a free-end situation in the maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An implant master model with a reference cube was digitized using x-ray computed tomography and served as the reference file. Digital impressions (TRIOS, 3Shape) were taken using three different ISB manufacturers: NT Trading, Kulzer, and Medentika (n = 10 per group). Conventional implant impressions were taken for comparison (n = 10). The conventional models were digitized, and all models (digital and conventional) were superimposed with the reference file to obtain the 3D deviations for the implant-abutment-interface points (IAIPs). Results for linear deviation (trueness and precision) were analyzed using pairwise comparisons (P < .05; SPSS version 25). For precision, a two-way factorial mixed ANOVA was used. RESULTS: The deviations for trueness (mean) ± precision (SD) of the IAIPs ranged as follows: FDI region 14 = 0.106 ± 0.050 mm (Medentika) to 0.134 ± .026 mm (NT Trading); region 16 = 0.108 ± 0.046 mm (conventional) to 0.164 ± 0.032 mm (NT Trading); region 24 = 0.111 ± 0.050 mm (conventional) to 0.191 ± 0.052 mm (Medentika); region 26 = 0.086 ± 0.040 mm (conventional) to 0.199 ± 0.066 mm (Kulzer). There were significant differences for trueness between all digital and conventional impression techniques. For precision, only two significant differences in two implant regions (14, 24) were observed. CONCLUSION: Longer scanning paths resulted in higher deviations of the implant position in digital impressions. Due to algorithms implemented in the software, errors resulting from the different scan bodies may be reduced during the alignment process of the IOS in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To assess the absolute linear distances of three different intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) using an intraoral scanner compared to a conventional impression in a common clinical model setup with a gap and a free-end situation in the maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An implant master model with a reference cube was digitized using x-ray computed tomography and served as the reference file. Digital impressions (TRIOS, 3Shape) were taken using three different ISB manufacturers: NT Trading, Kulzer, and Medentika (n = 10 per group). Conventional implant impressions were taken for comparison (n = 10). The conventional models were digitized, and all models (digital and conventional) were superimposed with the reference file to obtain the 3D deviations for the implant-abutment-interface points (IAIPs). Results for linear deviation (trueness and precision) were analyzed using pairwise comparisons (P < .05; SPSS version 25). For precision, a two-way factorial mixed ANOVA was used. RESULTS: The deviations for trueness (mean) ± precision (SD) of the IAIPs ranged as follows: FDI region 14 = 0.106 ± 0.050 mm (Medentika) to 0.134 ± .026 mm (NT Trading); region 16 = 0.108 ± 0.046 mm (conventional) to 0.164 ± 0.032 mm (NT Trading); region 24 = 0.111 ± 0.050 mm (conventional) to 0.191 ± 0.052 mm (Medentika); region 26 = 0.086 ± 0.040 mm (conventional) to 0.199 ± 0.066 mm (Kulzer). There were significant differences for trueness between all digital and conventional impression techniques. For precision, only two significant differences in two implant regions (14, 24) were observed. CONCLUSION: Longer scanning paths resulted in higher deviations of the implant position in digital impressions. Due to algorithms implemented in the software, errors resulting from the different scan bodies may be reduced during the alignment process of the IOS in clinical practice.