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.