Table 3 Summary of studies evaluated trueness of IOSs by CMM without 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 | Scanners for test data | Equipment for reference data | Evaluated parameters as representative of accuracy | Operator | Models | Results about trueness | Conclusion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Giménez B et al. 2015 | COS | Crista Apex (CMM) | IIDD | 2 experienced, 2 inexperienced | Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#12, #15, #17, #22, #25, #27) #15 distally 30° tilted #25 mesially 30° tilted | Angle effect on IIDD: Angulated implants: − 20.2 ± 21.9 μm non-angulated implants: − 37.9 ± 26.2 μm Operator’s effect on IIDD: Experienced operator: − 30.8 ± 25.9 μm Inexperienced operator: 13.3 ± 51.2 μm Implant depth effect on IIDD: Deep implants: − 34.3 ± 18.7 μm Normal-depth implants: − 28.3 ± 29.8 μm | Angle and depth of implants did not affect trueness.Experience of operator affected on trueness. | |
Fukazawa et al. 2017 [12] | COS TDS2 TDS3 TRIOS KaVo(lab scanner) | UPMC 550-CARAT (CMM) | IIDD | 1 experienced | Partially edentulous mandible with 2 implants (#35, #36) | Rate of changes in IIDD (calculation: RSS) COS: 0.30 % TDS2:0.17 % TDS3: 0.17 % TRIOS: 0.05 % Kavo: 0.02 % | IOSs are useful for implant therapy for multiple missing teeth. | |
Partially edentulous mandible with 2 implants (#45, #47) | COS: 0.45 % TDS2: 0.38 % TDS3: 0.32 % TRIOS: 0.11 % KaVo: 0.07 % | |||||||
Gimenez et al. 2017 [40] | TDS | Crista Apex (CMM) | IIDD & IIAD | 2 experienced, 2 inexperienced | Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#12, #15, #17, #22, #25, #27) #15: mesially 30° tilted #12: 4 mm subgingiva #22: 2 mm subgingiva #25: distally 30° tilted | Mean IIDD;5.38 ± 12.61 μm to − 26.97 ± 50.56 μm Mean linear errors in 1st and 2nd quadrant; 1st quadrant: 7.6 ± 17.6 μm 2nd quadrant: − 10.3±39.2 μm | Mean IIAD: 0.16 ± 0.04 to − 0.43 ± 0.1° Mean angle errors in 1st and 2nd quadrant; 1st quadrant: 0.21 ± 0.17° 2nd quadrant: 0.28 ± 0.16° | TDS achieves acceptable trueness. Scan body visibility, experience of operator and scan range affects trueness of DI. |
Di Fore et al. 2019 | TDS Omnicam 3D progress CS3500 CS3600 Emelard Dental wings | SmartScope Flash,CNC 300 (CMM) | Linear deviation | 1 experienced | Fully edentulous mandible with 6 implants (#32, #34, #36, #42, #44, #46) | Mean linear deviations; TDS: 31 ± 8 μm TRIOS: 32 ± 5 μm Omnicam: 71 ± 55 μm CS3600: 61 ± 14 μm CS3500: 107 ± 28 μm Emelard: 101 ± 38 μm 3D progress: 344 ± 121 μm Dental Wings: 148 ± 64 μm | Some scanners are not suitable for DI in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. | |
Sami et al. 2020 [30] | TDS TRIOS Omnicam Emerald | Edge ScanArm HD (CMM) | Linear deviation | 1 experienced | Fully edentulous mandible with 6 implants (5mm apart each) | Calculation: Arithmetic average (95% CI) TDS: − .02mm [− .09, 0.78] TRIOS: − .13mm [− .21, 0.86] Omnicam: − .13mm [− .22, − .04] Emerald: − .05mm [− .09, − .02] Calculation: RMS [95% CI] TDS: 0.70mm [0.62, 0.78] TRIOS: 0.74mm [0.62, 0.86] Omnicam: 0.75mm [0.70, 0.79] Emerald: 0.81mm 0.77, 0.85] | No difference among IOSs. | |