Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of studies evaluated trueness of IOSs by industrial 3D scanner. 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 Conventional Impression Evaluated parameters as representative of accuracy Models Results about trueness Conclusion
Amin et al. 2016 [23] Omnicam
TDS
Activity 880 scanner (lab scanner) Open tray, Splinted Linear deviation Fully edentulous mandible with 5 implants (at midline, #33, #35, #43, #45)
#35: distally 10° tilted
#45: distally 15° tilted
Mean linear deviation (calculation: RMS);TDS:
19.3 ± 2.8 μm
Omnicam: 46.4 ± 7.3 μm
CI: 167.9 ± 50.4 μm
Trueness order:
TDS, Omnicam > CI with splinted open-tray\TDS > Omnicam
Imburgia et al. 2017 [27] CS3600
Trios3
Omnicam
TDS
ScanRider (industrial scanner) No CI Linear deviation Partially edentulous maxilla with 3 implants
(#23, #24, #26)
CS3600 (45.8 ± 1.6 μm) > TRIOS3 (50.2 ± 1.6 μm) > Omnicam (58.8 ± 1.6 μm) = TDS (61.4 ± 3.0 μm) Difference of IOS affected trueness
Partially edentulous model showed better trueness than fully edentulous model in all IOS.
Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants
(#11, #14, #16, #21, #24, #26)
CS3600(60.6 ± 11.7 μm) > TDS (106.4 ± 23.1 μm)
TRIOS3 (67.2 ± 6.9 μm) > TDS (106.4 ± 23.1 μm)
Omnicam (66.4 ± 3.9 μm) > TDS (106.4 ± 23.1 μm)
Van der Meer et al. 2012 [13] Bluecam
iTero
COS
Leitz PMM 12106 (CMM) No CI IIDD & IIAD Partially edentulous mandible with 3 implants (#36, #41, #46) IIIDD;
#36-41
COS: 14.6 ± 12.7 μm
iTero: 70.5 ± 56.3 μm
Bluecam:79.6 ± 77.1 μm
#36–46
COS: 23.5 ± 14.2 μm
iTero: 61.1 ± 53.9 μm
Bluecam: 81.6 ± 52.5 μm
IIAD;
#36–41
COS: 0.21 ± 0.04°
iTero: 0.35 ± 0.34°
Bluecam: 0.63 ± 0.55°
#36–46
COS: 0.47 ± 0.14°
iTero: 0.42 ± 0.17°
Bluecam: 0.44 ± 0.32°
Increase in linear and/or angle errors over the length of the arch were observed(not statistically significant).
Arcuri et al. 2019 [26] Trios3 ATOS Compact Scan 5M (industrial scanner) No CI Linear deviation and angle deviation Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#12, #14, #16, #22, #24, #26) Calculation: ASS (|Δx|+|Δy|+|Δz|)
Mean linear deviation of each scan body’s material [95% CI]
Titanium: 99.3 μm [78.3, 120.3]
Peek: 54.7 μm [33.7, 75.7]
Peek-titanium: 196 μm [175.4, 217.5]
Mean linear error of each implants’ position
#12: 100 μm
#14: 126 μm
#16: 117 μm
#22: 81 μm
#24: 104 μm
#26: 172 μm
Scan body’s angle (deg) deviations
Titanium: 0.71 ± 0.29°
Peek: 0.64 ± 0.27°
Peek-Titanium: 0.76 ± 0.36°
Implant angulation affected the linear deviationImplant position affected the angle deviation
Materials of scan body affected accuracy of DI (PEEK was better than titanium and PEEK+titanium)
Operator did not affect trueness
Kim RJY et al. 2019 [28] Omnicam
CS3600
i500
iTero
Trios
stereoSCAN neo (industrial scanner) No CI Linear deviation Partially edentulous mandible with 6 implants (#33,#35,#37,#43,#45,#47)
#37: mesially 30° tilted
#47: distally 30° tilted
Calculation: RMS
Omnicam: 75.07 [25.97, 147.85]
CS3600: 72.70 [30.50, 158.58]
i500: 82.25 [38.20, 171.92]
iTero: 68.52 [26.65, 155.05]
TRIOS3: 90.26 [43.22, 218.02]
All the IOSs showed bigger linear deviation with an increasing distance.
The direction and magnitude of deviation differed among jaw regions and IOSs.
All the IOSs were similar for unilateral arch scanning, while i500 and TRIOS 3 showed better trueness than the others for partially edentulous model.