Skip to main content

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.