Table 5 Summary of studies evaluated trueness of IOSs by superimposing digital data. 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 | IOSs | Equipment for reference data | Conventional impression | Evaluated parameters as representative of accuracy | Models | Results about trueness | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Papaspyridakos 2015 [37] | Trios | Iscan D103i (lab scanner) | Splinted, implant level Non-splinted, implant level Splinted, abutment level Non-splinted, abutment level | IIDD | Fully edentulous mandible with 5 implants(at midline, #33, #35, #43, #45) #35: distally 10° tilted #45: distally 15° tilted | Calculation: RSS, [95% CI] DI: 19.38 μm [11.54–26.21] CI (splinted, implant level): 7.42 μm [5.28–10.88] CI (non-splinted, implant level): 17.65 μm [13.19–76.49] CI (splinted, abutment level): 13.05 μm [10.46–23.67] CI (non-splinted, abutment level): 8.23 μm [4.01–12.13] | DI is as accurate as CI. The implant angulation up to 15° did not affect the trueness of DI. |
Mangano et al. 2016 [25] | Trios2 CS3500 Zfx Intrascan Planscan | Iscan D104I (lab scanner) | No CIs | Surface deviation IIDD & IIAD | Partially edentulous maxilla with 3 implants (#21, #24, #26) | TRIOS2 (71.2 ± 19.5) > Planscan (233.4 ± 62.6) CS3500 (47.8 ± 7.3) > Zfx(117.0 ± 28.6), Planscan (233.4 ± 62.6) Zfx (117.0 ± 28.6) > Planscan (233.4 ± 62.6) | Edentulous type didn’t affect trueness. Difference of IOS affected trueness |
Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#11, #14, #16, #21, #24, #26) | TRIOS2 (71.6 ± 26.7 ) > Planscan(253.4 ± 13.6) CS3500 (63.2 ± 7.5) > Zfx (103.0 ± 26.9), Planscan(253.4 ± 13.6) Zfx (103.0 ± 26.9) > Planscan (253.4 ± 13.6) | ||||||
Mangano et al. 2019 [24] | TRIOS3 CS3600 Omnicam DWIO Emerald | Freedom UHD (lab scanner) | No CIs | Surface deviation | Partially edentulous maxilla with 3 implants (#14, #16, #23) | #14, #16: CS3600 (23 ± 1.1) > Trios3 (28.5 ± 0.5) > Omnicam (38.1 ± 8.8) > Emerald(49.3 ± 5.5) > DWIO(49.8 ±5) #23: CS3600 (15.2 ± 0.8) > Trios3 (22.3 ± 0.5> DWIO (27.8 ± 3.2) > Omnicam (28.4 ± 4.5) > Emerald (43.1 ± 11.5) | Trueness was different among IOSs. Linear deviation was bigger in larger edentulous space. |
Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#11, #14, #16, #21, #24, #26) | CS 3600 (44.9 ± 8.9) > Trios3 (46.3 ± 4.9) > Emerald (66.3 ± 5.6) > Omnicam (70.4 ± 11.9) > DWIO(92.1 ± 24.1) | ||||||
Roig et al. 2020 [38] | Omnicam TDS TRIOS3 CS3600 | D810 (lab scanner) | Open tray, splinted open tray, non-splinted closed tray | IIDD & IIAD | Partially edentulous maxilla with 2 implants (#14, #16) | Calculation: RMS Omnicam: 0.225 mm, 0.063 mm TDS: 0.235 mm, 0.078 mm TRIOS3: 0.019 mm, 0.024 mm CS3600: 0.012 mm, 0.018 mm | TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed better trueness compared to that of closed tray, Omnicam, and TDS |