Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Research and Education| Volume 123, ISSUE 1, P96-104, January 2020

Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses


      Statement of problem

      The effect of various scan bodies and scanning techniques on the accuracy and scan time for completely edentulous patients is not well understood.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of 4 scanning techniques and 5 intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the trueness, precision, and scan time in a completely edentulous arch with 4 implants.

      Material and methods

      Five different ISB systems: AF, NT, DE, C3D, and ZI, and 4 different scanning techniques: unmodified master model (NO), glass fiduciary markers placed on the edentulous ridge (GB), pressure-indicating paste brushed over the ridge and palate (PP), and floss tied between the scan bodies (FL), were evaluated. Scan bodies were attached to an edentulous maxillary model with 4 dental implant analogs and scanned by using a structured blue light industrial scanner, and 5 consecutive digital scans of the model were made by using an intraoral scanner and 1 of the 4 techniques (n=5). The scans were superimposed on the master reference model, and the distance deviation and angular deviation of the scan bodies was calculated. The scan time was also recorded. A 2-factor ANOVA was used to examine the effect of scan body and technique on the trueness and scan time, with subsequent Tukey honestly significant difference or Bonferroni-corrected Student t tests. Precision was evaluated by tests for homogeneity of the variances between groups. Reliability for the entire study was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (α=.05 for all tests).


      The overall reliability of the study according to intraclass correlations was 0.999. In terms of trueness, no statistically significant interaction was found between the effects of scan body and technique on the distance deviation (P=.246); however, the scan body (P=.031) and technique (P<.001) each had a significant effect independently. A statistically significant interaction was found between the effects of the scan body and technique on angular deviation (P<.001). Testing for the homogeneity of variances demonstrated significant differences in the precision among the groups in terms of distance deviation (P≤.013) and angular deviation (P≤.003). No statistically significant interaction was found between the effects of the scan body and technique (P=.076) on the scan time; however, the scan body alone was found to have a significant effect (P<.001).


      The accuracy (trueness and precision) of complete-arch digital implant scans using ISBs was affected by both the scan body and scan technique when using an intraoral scanning system. The ZI scan body had significantly less distance deviation, whereas splinting scan bodies with floss led to significantly more distance deviation. The scan techniques with different surface modifications were not found to improve the scan accuracy. The use of different ISBs led to significant differences in the scan time.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Adell R.
        • Lekholm U.
        • Rockler B.
        • Brånemark P.I.
        A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw.
        Int J Oral Surg. 1981; 10: 387-416
        • Örtorp A.
        • Torsten J.
        CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: a 10-year comparative clinical study.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: 88-99
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Benic G.I.
        • Hogsett V.L.
        • White G.S.
        • Lal K.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        Accuracy of implant casts generated from splinting and non-splinting impression techniques for edentulous patients: An optical scanning study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 676-681
        • Wee A.G.
        • Aquilino S.A.
        • Schneider R.L.
        Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature.
        Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12: 167-178
        • Skalak R.
        Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 49: 843-848
        • Zarb G.A.
        • Schmitt A.
        The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part III: problems and complications encountered.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 185-194
        • Chee W.
        • Jivraj S.
        Impression techniques for implant dentistry.
        Br Dent J. 2006; 201: 429-432
        • Brandt J.
        • Lauer H.
        • Thorsten P.
        • Brandt S.
        Digital process for an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: a clinical report.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 469-473
        • Christensen G.J.
        Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in office milling.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304
        • Rudolph H.
        • Salmen H.
        • Moldan M.
        • Kuhn K.
        • Sichwardt V.
        • Wöstmann B.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations.
        J Appl Oral Sci. 2016; 24: 85-94
        • Güth J.F.
        • Keul C.
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Beuer F.
        • Edelhoff D.
        Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17: 1201-1208
        • Logozzo S.
        • Zanetti E.M.
        • Franceschini G.
        • Kilpelä A.
        • Mäkynen A.
        Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry.
        Opt Lasers Eng. 2014; 54: 203-221
        • Hack G.D.
        • Patzelt S.B.
        Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 10: 1-5
        • Amin S.
        • Weber H.P.
        • Finkelman M.
        • El Rafie K.
        • Kudara Y.
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1360-1367
        • Su T.S.
        • Sun J.
        Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2015; 59: 236-242
        • Vandeweghe S.
        • Vervack V.
        • Dierens M.
        • De Bruyn H.
        Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 648-653
        • Ali A.O.
        Accuracy of digital impressions achieved from five different digital impression systems.
        Dentistry. 2015; 5: 5
        • Ender A.
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
        • Imburgia M.
        • Logozzo S.
        • Hauschild U.
        • Veronesi G.
        • Mangano C.
        • Mangano F.G.
        Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.
        BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 92
        • Mangano F.G.
        • Veronesi G.
        • Hauschild U.
        • Mijiritsky E.
        • Mangano C.
        Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0163107
        • DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung
        Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results -- Part 1: General principles and definitions.
        (ISO 5725-1:1994) Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin1997 (Available at:)
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
        • Rudolph H.
        • Quaas S.
        • Luthardt R.G.
        Matching point clouds: limits and possibilities.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2002; 5: 155-164
        • Wilk B.L.
        Intraoral digital impressioning for dental implant restorations versus traditional implant impression techniques.
        Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015; 36 (529-30, 532-33)
        • Del Corso M.
        • Abà G.
        • Vazquez L.
        • Dargaud J.
        • Dohan Ehrenfest D.M.
        Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 11: 214-221
        • Mizumoto R.M.
        • Yilmaz B.
        Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 343-352
        • Ahlholm P.
        • Sipilä K.
        • Vallittu P.
        • Jakonen M.
        • Kotiranta U.
        Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
        • Patzelt S.B.
        • Vonau S.
        • Stampf S.
        • Att W.
        Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144: 914-920
        • Holst S.
        • Persson A.
        • Wichmann M.
        • Karl M.
        Digitizing implant position locators on master casts: comparison of a noncontact scanner and a contact-probe scanner.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27: 29-35
        • Rhee Y.K.
        • Huh Y.H.
        • Cho L.R.
        • Park C.J.
        Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7: 460-467
        • Giménez B.
        • Pradíes G.
        • Martínez-Rus F.
        • Özcan M.
        Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 56-64
        • Kim J.E.
        • Amelya A.
        • Shin Y.
        • Shim J.S.
        Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 755-761
        • Lee J.H.
        Improved digital impressions of edentulous areas.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 448-449
        • Kim Y.J.
        • Cribbie R.A.
        ANOVA and the variance homogeneity assumption: Exploring a better gatekeeper.
        Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2018; 71: 1-12
        • Koo T.K.
        • Li M.Y.
        A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research.
        J Chiropr Med. 2016; 15: 155-163
        • Vlaar S.T.
        • van der Zel J.M.
        Accuracy of dental digitizers.
        Int Dent J. 2006; 56: 301-309
        • Gimenez-Gonzalez B.
        • Hassan B.
        • Özcan M.
        • Pradíes G.
        An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla.
        J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 650-655
        • Lee S.J.
        • Betensky R.A.
        • Gianneschi G.E.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 715-719
        • Stimmelmayr M.
        • Güth J.F.
        • Erdelt K.
        • Edelhoff D.
        • Beuer F.
        Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16: 851-856
        • Andriessen F.S.
        • Rijkens D.R.
        • van der Meer W.J.
        • Wismeijer D.W.
        Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 186-194
        • Giménez B.
        • Özcan M.
        • Martínez-Rus F.
        • Pradíes G.
        Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 853-862
        • Fluegge T.
        • Att W.
        • Metzger M.
        • Nelson K.
        A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies-An experimental approach.
        J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 34-41
        • Flügge T.V.
        • Att W.
        • Metzger M.C.
        • Nelson K.
        Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 277-283
        • Müller P.
        • Ender A.
        • Joda T.
        • Katsoulis J.
        Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
        Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
        • Mennito A.S.
        • Evans Z.P.
        • Lauer A.W.
        • Patel R.B.
        • Ludlow M.E.
        • Renne W.G.
        Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.
        J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30: 113-118