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. |