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. | |