Skip to main content

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