Table 4 IOS accuracy compared to conventional techniques
From: The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review
| References | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression type (stone cast accuracy) | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gimenez-Gonzalez et al. [59] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | Lava COS | N/A | CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex | Operator experience ss influenced accuracy. Angulation and depth of placement did no ss influence accuracy |
| Gimenez et al. [48] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) |
3D Progress ZFX Intrascan | N/A | CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex |
Experience of the operator, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in accuracy with either scanner ZFX presented higher FA accuracy |
| Papaspyridakos et al. [33] | Full arch edentulous mandible with 5 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 2 |
Polyether mono Implant level splinted/unsplinted Polyether mono Abutment level splinted/unsplinted | Iscan iD103 Imetric | IOS resulted in accuracy similar to splinted conventional implant impressions. Both were SS more accurate to non-splinted conventional imps. Implant angulations up to 10–15 degrees did not affect IOS accuracy |
| Vandeweghe et al. [49] | Full arch edentulous mandible with 6 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios 2 (28 μm) Lava COS (112 μm) True Def (35 μm) Omnicam (61 μm) | N/A | 104i Imetric | Newer generation IOS performed very well regarding full arch accuracy |
| Imburgia et al. [46] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios 3 (Tr = 67 μm/Pr = 31 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 60 μm/Pr = 65 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 66 μm/Pr = 57 μm) TrueDef (Tr = 106 μm/Pr = 75 μm | N/A | ScanRider | CS3600 had SS higher accuracy compared to other IOS. Accuracy in the partial arch is higher for all IOS compared to the Full arch situation |
| Amin et al. [34] | Edentulous mandible with 5 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) |
Omnicam (46 μm) True Def (19 μm) | Polyether mono splinted (custom open tray) (168 μm) | Activity 880 (Smart Optics) |
Digital IOS FA impressions were ss more accurate compared to conventional FA impressions True Def IOS was ss more accurate than Omnicam IOS |
| Gimenez et al. [62] | Edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | True Def (70 μm) | N/A | CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex | The size of visible scanbody affects accuracy. Angulation of scanbodies does not influence accuracy. Scan distance (full arch) affects accuracy |
| Ciocca et al. [60] | Edentulous titanium mandible with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | True Def (41-82 μm) | N/A | OCMM SmartScope Flash CNC 300 |
Operator experience did not influence mean IOS FA accuracy Deviations increased with increase in the length of scan |
| Alikhasi et al. [39] | 2 Fully edentulous maxillae with 4 implants each (trilobed and external hexagon connection) | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 2) | Trios 3 | PVS dual mix with custom trays (open and closed tray) | CMM Mistral and CMM Atos Core 80 | IOS was ss more accurate than PVS open and closed tray. PVS open is ss more accurate than PVS closed. Type of implant connection does not influence IOS accuracy. Implant angulation does not influence IOS accuracy |
| Mutwalli et al. [50] | Edentulous maxillary cast with 5 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios 3 mono (63 μm) Trios 3 (114 μm) iTero (41 μm) Atos Core (19 μm) | N/A | Carl Zeiss CMM |
Low precision of all IOS for full arch scanning iTero was statistically the most accurate TRIOS official strategy was not used |
| Gintaute et al. [63] | Edentulous mandibular models with 4 and 6 implants with different angulations | Distance | In vitro (n = 4) | TrueDef |
PVS dual mix PE single step both with custom open tray | CMM Createch Medical | The accuracy of the IOS and conventional impression-making approaches for straight and tilted dental implants was comparable, and might be clinically considered for full-arch, multiple-implant restorations |
| Tan et al. [37] | Maxillary full arch models with 6 and 8 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 2) |
Trios True Def Ceramill Map400 InEos X5 D900 | Polyether mono splinted (open tray) | CMM (Renishaw) |
True Def was ss less accurate Conventional imps had better accuracy compared to IOS Decreasing implant distance may help reduce IOS distortion |
| Kim et al. [36] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | PVS Aquasil mono, custom tray-splinted | Contura CMM | Conventional open-splinted tray impression produced more accurate impressions compared to IOS |
| Mangano et al. [23] | Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios 3 (Tr = 46 μm/Pr = 35 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 44 μm/Pr = 35 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 70 μm/Pr = 89 μm) DWIO (Tr = 92 μm/Pr = 111 μm Emerald (Tr = 66 μm/Pr = 61 μm) | N/A | Freedom DOF |
Trios3 and CS3600 were SS more accurate in Full arch compared to other IOS Accuracy of IOS in implants FA is NOT corelated to IOS resolution |
| Mizumoto et al. [75] | Full edentulous polyurethane maxillary cast with 4 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios | N/A | COMET L3D | Accuracy of 4- implants FA is not affected by inclusion of the palate in the scan or not |
| Rech-Ortega et al. [40] | Model with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | True Definition (21-118 μm) depending on the interimplant distance |
Polyether (open tray) non-splinted 20-68 μm depending on the interimplant distance | CMM Heningshaw |
For adjacent implants (up to 4) both techniques are satisfactory The longer the distance between implants, the lower the accuracy of both techniques |
| Di Fiore et al. [51] | Full edentulous mandibular PMMA cast with 6 scanbodies | Distance and 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios 3 (32 μm) True Def (31 μm) Omnicam (71 μm) 3DProgress (344 μm) CS3500 (107 μm) CS3600 (61 μm) Emerald (101 μm) DWIO (148 μm) | N/A | SmartScope CMM |
Some IOS performed better than others in full arch scans The size of the output file is independent of the accuracy of the IOS |
| Arcuri et al. [61] | Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | N/A |
ATOS Compact Scan 5 |
Implant scanbody material significantly influenced IOS FA digital impression with peek showing the best results on both linear and angular measurements, followed by titanium, with peek-titanium showing the worst results Implant angulation significantly affected the linear deviations while implant position the angular deviation. No significant operator effect on the IOS accuracy was detected |
| Bilmenoglou et al. [53] | Edentulous mandible with 6 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios color pod (31 μm) Trios color cart (40 μm) Trios mono cart (43 μm) 3Dprogress(102 μm) Omnicam (32 μm) Bluecam (45 μm) Apollo DI (37 μm) E4D (82 μm) Planscan (345 μm) Lythos (113 μm) | N/A | ATOS CORE 80 | TRIOS devices, Omnicam, Apollo DI, and Bluecam are suitable for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses |
| Sami et al. [52] | Edentulous mandibular model with 6 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios TrueDef Omnicam Emerald | N/A | Edge ScanArm (Faro) | No statistical or clinical differences were found among the scanners tested. The 3D map was the best method for observing the data |
| Miyoshi et al. [35] | Maxillary edentulous model with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios 2 (Pr = 29 μm) TrueDef (Pr = 16 μm) Omnicam (Pr = 19 μm) CS3600 (Pr = 21 μm) |
PVS dual mix (Imprint 4) with custom open tray-splinted-abutment (Pr = 21 μm) | D810 (Pr = 3,9 μm) | Range of scanning influenced impression accuracy. Digital impressions for implants should be limited to 3-unit structures on 2 impl |
| Mizumoto et al. [66] | Edentulous maxilla with 4 implants scanned with 5 different sets of scan bodies and 4 different strategies | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios | N/A | COMET L3D | Scanbody design influences accuracy (the smoother the better). Also, soft tissue surface modifications (pressure paste) did not produce more accurate scans |
| Huang et al. [38] | Edentulous mandibular cast with 4 implants and 3 different scanbody designs | 3D Surface |
In vitro (n = 1) |
Trios 3 (Tr = 28-38 μm/(Pr = 27-48 μm) depending on the scanbody used.) |
PVS putty and light (Silagum) splinted (open tray) (Tr = 25 μm/Pr = 19 μm) | D2000 | Conventional splinted open tray impressions were ss more accurate than IOS digital impressions. Experimental design with interconnected scanbodies SS improved accuracy |
| Chochlidakis et al. [58] | Full arch maxillary edentulous patients with multiple implants (4–6) | 3D Surface | In vivo (n = 16) |
True Def (RMS 162 μm) 4 implants (139 μm) 5 implants (146 μm) 6 implants (185 μm) | Heavy and light PVS (Imprint)-open tray technique | 7series (Dental Wings) |
Mean IOS deviation was 162 μm which is marginally acceptable for clinical accuracy Increasing the implant number tended to increase the global deviation in the IOS impressions but with no SS |