Skip to main content

Table 6 Summary of the results of researches evaluated IOS’s precision 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

Article Scanners for test data Equipment for reference data Evaluated parameters as representative of accuracy Models Results about precision Conclusion
Ajioka et al. 2016 [14] COS UPMC 550-CARAT (CMM) IIDV & IIAV Partially edentulous mandible with 2 implants (#35, 36) Mean IIDV (Calculation: RSS);
DI: 15.6 ± 10.9 μm
CI: 13.5 ± 8.6 μm
Mean IIAV;
5-mm height abutment;
DI: 0.42 ± 0.17°
CI: 0.14 ± 0.06°
7-mm height abutment;
DI: 0.19 ± 0.09°
CI: 0.16 ± 0.09°
Longer abutment or scan body reduces angle error in DI.
Flügge et al. 2016 [15] iTero
TRIOS
TDS
D250 (lab scanner) IIDV Partially edentulous mandible with 2 implants (#35, #36)
Partially edentulous mandible with 5 implants (#37, #36, #34, #45, #47)
The results were provided by a graph without numerical data. Longer inter-implant distance deteriorated precision in TDS, but not in iTero and TRIOS.
The angle measurement didn’t show deterioration in precision for longer inter-implant distances in all IOSs.
Mangano et al. 2016 [25] TRIOS2
CS3500
Zfx Intrascan
Planscan
Iscan D104I (lab scanner) Linear variation
Angle variation
Surface variation
Partially edentulous maxilla with 3 implants (#21, #24, #26) TRIOS2 (51.0 ± 18.5 μm) = CS3500 (40.8 ± 6.4 μm) > Zfx (126.2 ± 21.2 μm) > Planscan (219.8 ± 59.1 μm) Difference of IOS affected precision
Edentulous type didn’t affect precision
Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#11, #14, #16, #21, #24, #26) TRIOS2 (67.0 ± 32.2 μm) = CS3500 (55.2 ± 10.4 μm) > Zfx (112.4 ± 22.6 μm) > Planscan (204.2 ± 22.7 μm)
Imburgia et al. 2017 [27] CS3600
TRIOS3
Omnicam
TDS
ScanRider (industrial scanner) Surface variation Partially edentulous maxilla with 3 implants (#23, #24, #26) Mean surface variation;
TDS: 19.5 ± 3.1 μm
TRIOS3: 24.5 ± 3.7 μm
CS3600: 24.8 ± 4.6 μm
Omnicam: 26.3 ± 1.5 μm
No significant difference between IOSs
Difference of IOS didn't affect precision
Edentulous type affected precision in some IOSs.
Precision in partially edentulous models was better than fully edentulous models except TRIOS 3.
Fully edentulous model with 6 implants (#11, #14, #16, #21, #24, #26) Mean surface variation;
TRIOS3: 31.5 ± 9.8 μm
Omnicam: 57.2 ± 9.1 μm
CS3600: 65.5 ± 16.7 μm
TDS: 75.3 ± 43.8 μm
No significant difference between IOSs
Mangano et al. 2019 [24] TRIOS3
CS3600
Omnicam
DWIO
Emerald
Freedom UHD (lab scanner) Surface variation Partially edentulous maxilla with 3 implants (#14, #16, #23) Mean surface variation and order of precision in each edentulous site;
#23
CS 3600 (11.3 ± 1.1 μm) > TRIOS3 (15.2 ± 0.8 μm) > DWIO (27.1 ± 10.7 μm) > Omnicam (30.6 ± 3.3 μm) > Emerald (32.8 ± 10.7 μm)
#14, #16
CS 3600 (17 ± 2.3 μm) > TRIOS3 (21 ± 1.9 μm) > Emerald (29.9 ± 8.9 μm) > DWIO (34.8 ± 10.8 μm) > Omnicam (43.2 ± 9.4 μm)
Precision was different among IOSs.
Linear error was bigger in larger edentulous space.
Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#11, #14, #16, #21, #24, #26) TRIOS3 (35.6 ± 3.4) > CS 3600(35.7 ± 4.3) > Emerald (61.5 ± 18.1) > Omnicam(89.3 ±14) > DWIO (111 ± 24.8)
Di Fore et al. 2019 TDS
Omnicam
3D progress
CS3500
CS3600
Emelard
Dental wings
SmartScope Flash, CNC 300 (CMM) IIDV Fully edentulous mandible with 6 implants (#32, #34, #36, #42, #44, #46) The results were provided by a graph without numerical data. Linear relationship between the errors and inter-implant distance was detected for TDS and CS3600.
Some scanners are not suitable for DI in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis.
Miyoshi et al. 2019 [41] CS3600
TRIOS2
Omnicam
TDS
3Shape D810 (lab scanner) Surface variation Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants (#12, #14, #16, #22, #24, #26) Mean surface variation;
I. With increase in the number of implants;
TRIOS2: 28.6 ± 10.0 μm
Omnicam: 18.7 ± 1.4 μm
CS3600: 21.3 ± 6.1 μm
TDS: 16.4 ± 5.3 μm
Significant difference between IOSs
II. Without increase in the number of implants;
TRIOS2: 31.8 ± 5.6 μm
Omnicam: 19.7 ± 6.3 μm
CS3600: 21.6 ± 8.2 μm
TDS: 16.2 ± 7.2 μm
Significant difference between IOSs
Difference of IOS and impression range and their interactions were statistically significant.
Precision of the IOSs were comparable with dental laboratory scanner in a limited range.
Precision of IOS deteriorated as the ROI expanded
Roig et al. 2020 [38] Omnicam
TDS
TRIOS3
CS3600
D810 (lab scanner) Surface variation Partially edentulous maxilla with 2 implants (#16 and #14) Mean surface variation;
Omnicam: 0.034mm
TDS: 0.027 mm
TRIOS3: 0.029 mm
CS3600: 0.042 mm
DI showed better precision than CI.