Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: A systematic review


      Statement of problem

      Parallel dental implants improve prosthesis longevity and facilitate the impression making steps when compared with angled implants. The effect of implant angulation on the accuracy of casts generated by using intraoral scanners has not been fully investigated.


      The present systematic review addressed following the patient, intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) question: Does implant position affect the intraoral scanning accuracy of arches that will receive complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses?

      Material and methods

      A bibliographic search was performed in the Medline-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases by using specific descriptors for studies published until July 2020. All studies evaluated the intraoral scanning accuracy of arches rehabilitated with multiple implants through implant linear and/or angular deviation.


      Eight in vitro studies that met the eligibility criteria were evaluated. Five publications showed lower linear and angular displacements for the digital scans compared with the conventional technique. Two studies showed that the digital scan presented higher angular and linear distortions than the conventional technique. Only 1 study did not find differences between the 2 recording methods.


      Digital scanning is reliable. However, caution is needed concerning its indication, especially in patients where the angles between implants are greater than 15 degrees. The association of the implant angulation with the clinical factors needs to be further investigated. The absence of clinical evidence and methodological heterogeneity limited the results of this study.
      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


        • Alikhasi M.
        • Siadat H.
        • Nasirpour A.
        • Hasanzade M.
        Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type.
        Int J Dent. 2018; 2018: 1-9
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Gonzalez-Martin Ó.
        • Pérez López J.
        • Sánchez-Rubio J.L.
        • Özcan M.
        Position accuracy of implant analogs on 3D printed polymer versus conventional dental stone casts measured using a coordinate measuring machine.
        J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 560-567
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Chen C.J.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        • Doukoudakis A.
        • Weber H.P.
        • Chronopoulos V.
        Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 836-845
        • Ribeiro P.
        • Herrero-Climent M.
        • Díaz-Castro C.
        • Ríos-Santos J.V.
        • Padrós R.
        • Mur J.G.
        • et al.
        Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study.
        Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15: E1599
        • Chia V.A.
        • Esguerra R.J.
        • Teoh K.H.
        • Teo J.W.
        • Wong K.M.
        • Tan K.B.
        In vitro three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: the effect of implant angulation.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32: 313-321
        • 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
        • Gimenez B.
        • Özcan H.
        • Martínez-Rus F.
        • Pradíes L.
        Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: e54-e64
        • Gimenez B.
        • Özcan H.
        • Martínez-Rus F.
        • Pradíes L.
        Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters.
        Implant Dent. 2015; 24: 498-504
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000097
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Vist G.E.
        • Kunz R.
        • Falck-Ytter Y.
        • Alonso-Coello P.
        • et al.
        GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 924-926
      1. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Liberati A, et al. The 2011 Oxford CEBM evidence levels of evidence (introductory document). Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. p. 1-3.

        • Kim K.R.
        • Seo K.Y.
        • Kim S.
        Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122: 543-549
        • Liu Y.
        • Di P.
        • Zhao Y.
        • Hao Q.
        • Tian J.
        • Cui H.
        Accuracy of multi-implant impressions using 3D-printing custom trays and splinting versus conventional techniques for complete arches.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 1007-1014
        • 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
        • Menini M.
        • Setti P.
        • Pera F.
        • Pera P.
        • Pesca P.
        Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22: 1253-1262
        • Tan M.Y.
        • Yee S.H.X.
        • Wong K.M.
        • Tan K.B.C.
        Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in a edentulous arch.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 366-380
        • 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
        • Richert R.
        • Goujat A.
        • Venet L.
        • Viguie G.
        • Viennot S.
        • Robinson P.
        • et al.
        Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression.
        J Healthc Eng. 2017; 2017: 8427595
        • Resende C.C.D.
        • Barbosa T.A.Q.
        • Moura G.F.
        • Tavares L.N.
        • Rizzante F.A.P.
        • George F.M.
        • et al.
        Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 294-299
        • Lim J.-H.
        • Park J.-M.
        • Kim M.
        • Heo S.-J.
        • Myung J.-Y.
        Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Jiang P.
        • Sadeghpour M.
        • Piedra-Cascón W.
        • Zandinejad A.
        • Özcan M.
        • et al.
        Intraoral digital scans-part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 372-378
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Jiang P.
        • Sadeghpour M.
        • Piedra-Cascón W.
        • Zandinejad A.
        • Özcan M.
        • et al.
        Intraoral digital scans-part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 575-580
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Subramanian S.G.
        • Özcan M.
        • Krishnamurthy V.R.
        Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 107-113
        • Cuesta E.
        • Rico J.C.
        • Fernández P.
        • Blanco D.
        • Valiño G.
        Influence of roughness on surface scanning by means of a laser stripe system.
        Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2009; 43: 1157-1166
        • Carbajal M.J.B.
        • Wakabayashi K.
        • Nakamura T.
        • Yatani H.
        Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 392-399
        • Park J.M.
        Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8: 354-362
        • Vukasinovic N.
        • Mozina J.
        • Duhovnik J.
        Correlation between incidente angle, measurement distance, object colour and the number of acquired points at CNC laser scanning.
        J Mech Eng. 2012; 58: 23-28
        • Abduo J.
        • Elseyoufi M.
        Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors.
        Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-121
        • Lin W.S.
        • Harris B.T.
        • Elathamna E.N.
        • Abdel-Azim T.
        • Morton D.
        Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 102-109