Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of studies evaluated trueness of IOSs by CMM with CI. CI, conventional impression; DI, digital impression; IOS, intraoral scanner; RMS, root mean square √((x2 + y2 + z2)/3); RSS, root sum square ( √(x2 + y2 + z2))

From: Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review

Authors Scanner for test data Equipment for reference data Conventional impression Evaluated parameters as representative of accuracy Operator Models Results about trueness Conclusion
Ajioka et al. 2016 [14] COS UPMC 550-CARAT (CMM) Open tray, non-splinted IIDD & IIAD 1 experienced Partially edentulous mandible with 2 implants (#35,36) IIDD between implant #35 and #36
Calculation: RSS
DI: 64.5 ± 19.0 μm
CI: 22.5 ± 12.4 μm
5-mm height abutment
COS: 0.42 ± 0.18°
CI: 0.14 ± 0.01°
7-mm height abutment
COS: 0.20 ± 0.20°
CI: 0.15 ± 0.12°
Longer abutment reduces angle error in DI.
Chia et al. 2017 [31] TRIOS Global Silver Performance 7.10.7 (CMM) Open tray Linear and angle deviation Not mentioned Partially edentulous mandible with 2 implants (#44, #46) 0, 10, and 20° of buccolingual inter-implant angulation Linear error in distance from reference point
Calculation: RSS
DI:
0°: 31 ± 14.2 μm
10°: 45 ± 3.4 μm
20°: 42 ± 9.9 μm
CI:
0°: 18 ± 8.4 μm
10°: 33 ± 15.8 μm
20°: 36 ± 6.5 μm
Angule error towards x-axis in each inter-implant angle; DI: 0°: 0.041 ± 0.032°
10°: 0.55 ± 0.27°
20°: 0.80 ± 0.27°
CI: 0°: 0.07 ± 0.06°
10°: 0.28 ± 0.30°
20°: 0.55 ± 0.06°
Angule error towards y-axis in each inter-implant angle; DI: 0°: 0.10 ± 0.07°
10°: 0.11 ± 0.06°
20°: 0.08 ± 0.06°
CI: 0°: 0.20 ± 0.13°
10°: 0.11 ± 0.08°
20°: 0.17 ± 0.13°
Bigger inter-implant angles tend to cause linear and angle error strain.
Alikhasi et al. 2018 [19] TRIOS DEA Mistral (CMM)
ATOS Core 80 (CMM)
Open tray, non-splinted closed tray IIDD & IIAD 1 experienced Fully edentulous maxilla with 4 implants (#13, #15, #23, #25)
#15, #25: distally 45° tilted
Calculation: RSS DI + internal connection; straight implant:188 ± 134 μm,/tilted implant:162 ± 103 μm
DI+external connection; straight implant:195 ± 158 μm/tilted implant:165 ± 134 μm
CI (open tray) + internal connection; straight implant: 280 ± 142 μm/tilted implant:389 ± 228 μm
CI (open tray) + external connection; straight implant:711 ± 286 μm/tilted implant:364 ± 231 μm
CI (closed tray)+internal connection; straight implant:885 ± 389 μm/tilted implant:721 ± 384 μm
CI (closed tray)+external connection; straight implant: 797 ± 351 μm/tilted implant:442 ± 226 μm
Angle errors in each impression method and implant connection type:
DI+internal connection; straight implant: 0.59 ± 0.72°/tilted implant:0.36 ± 0.37°
DI + external connection; straight implant: 0.59 ± 0.72°/tilted implant:0.37 ± 0.38°
CI (open tray) +internal connection; straight implant: 2.29 ± 1.33°/tilted implant: 4.77 ± 2.20°
CI (open tray)+external connection; straight implant: 1.00 ± 0.45°/tilted implant:1.10 ± 0.39°
CI (closed tray)+internal connection; straight implant: 4.10 ± 2.73°/tilted implant: 9.37 ± 6.90°
CI (closed tray)+external connection; straight implant: 4.85 ± 1.46°/tilted implant:2.06 ± 0.97°
Trueness of impression: DI > CI with open-tray > CI with closed tray
Connection type and implant angulation did not affect the trueness in DI.
Menini et al. 2018 [39] TDS Crista Apex S (CMM) Open tray, non-splinted
Open tray, splinted
Closed tray
IIDD 3 experienced Fully edentulous jaw with 4 implants DI: 15 ± 11 to 19 ± 15 μm
CI: 22 ± 23 to 63 ± 59 μm
  DI showed better trueness than CI.
Tan et al. 2019 [10] TDS
TRIOS
Ceramill Map400 (lab scanner) inEos X5 (lab scanner)
D900 (lab scanner)
  Open tray, Splinted Linear and angle deviation Not mentioned Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#12, #14, #16, #22, #24, #26) 20 mm inter-implant distance Calculation: RSS
TDS:
− 267 ± 85.4 to − 709 ± 66.8 μm
TRIOS:
13.3 ± 47.4 to 166.8 ± 78.0 μm
Ceramill Map400: − 4.8 ± 11.6 to 35.8 ± 31.9 μm
inEos X5:
11.1 ± 9.3 to 45.4 ± 20.2 μm
D900:
2.7 ± 32.6 to − 59.8 ± 40.0 μm
Angle deviation towards x-axis;
TDS:
− 0.06 ± 0.41 to − 2.25 ± 1.10°
TRIOS:
0.02 ± 0.21 to − 2.19 ± 0.45°
Ceramill Map400: − .04 ± 0.31 to − 2.35 ± 0.17°
inEos X5:
0.05 ± 0.04 to − 1.62 ± 0.54°
D900:
− .15 ± 0.18 to − 1.94 ± 0.67°
Angle deviation towards y-axis;
TDS:
− .14 ± 0.25 to 0.47 ± 0.32°
TRIOS: 0.11 ± 0.20 to − .93 ± 0.29°
Ceramill Map400: 0.03 ± 0.27 to − .74 ± 0.18°
inEos X5:
− .00 ± 0.16 to − .54 ± 0.16°
D900: 0.22 ± 0.35 to 0.47 ± 0.36°
Shorter inter-implant distance reduce linear error in DI. TDS showed the poorest trueness for all linear errors in both models.
Fully edentulous maxilla with 8 implants (#11, #13, #15, #17, #21, #23, #25, #27)
13-mm inter-implant distance
Calculation: RSS
TDS:
− 151.1 ± 32.8 to − 602.5 ± 70.0 μm
TRIOS:
− 9.1 ± 28.9 to 69.8 ± 109.2 μm
Ceramill Map400: 9.8 ± 15.7 to 50.2 ± 20.9 μm
inEos X5:
14.6 ± 7.5 to 66.4 ± 5.9 μm
D900:
− 4.2 ± 26.3 to − 34.7 ± 28.8 μm
Angle error towards x-axis;
TDS:
0.02 ± 0.16 to − .69 ± 0.57°
TRIOS:
− .11 ± 0.30 to 0.53 ± 0.33°
Ceramill Map400: 0.07 ± 0.14 to 0.60 ± 0.14°
inEos X5:
− .03 ± 0.07 to − .35 ± 0.11°
D900:
0.04 ± 0.12 to − .31 ± 0.32°
Angle error towards y-axis;
TDS:
0.08 ± 0.15 to − 1.05 ± 0.30°
TRIOS:
0.15 ± 0.19 to − .81 ± 0.33°
Ceramill Map400:
0.28 ± 0.24 to − .84 ± 0.30°
inEos X5:
0.02 ± 0.05 to − .88 ± 0.38°
D900: 0.04 ± 0.11 to − .71 ± 0.24°
Gintaute et al. 2018 [29] TDS Crysta-Apex (CMM) Open tray, non-splinted IIDD & IIAD Not mentioned Fully edentulous mandible with 2 straight implants (#32, #42) 18.5 ± 19.8 μm 0.04 ± 0.05° DI and CI are comparable but DI can be applied for fully edentulous jaw with multiple implant cases. Although some statistically significant differences in errors between the impression methods and models, they were within clinically acceptable range.
Fully edentulous mandible with 4 straight implants (#32, #34, #42, #44) 9.5 ± 16.0 μm 0.17 ± 0.14°
Fully edentulous mandible with 2 straight implants (#32, #42) and 2 distally angulated implants (#34, #44) 35.8 ± 24.2 μm 0.22 ± 0.19°
Fully edentulous mandible with 6 straight implants (#32, #34,#36, #42, #44, #46) 31.1 ± 27.1 μm 0.24 ± 0.22°