Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Three-dimensional positional accuracy of intraoral and laboratory implant scan bodies


      Statement of problem

      In the implant digital workflow, scan bodies provide the 3D position of digital implants in the virtual dental arch. However, limited evidence is available on scan body accuracy, selection, and usage.


      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the 3D positional accuracy of 4 intraoral and 6 laboratory scan body systems to the implants and laboratory replicas of an implant system under various torque magnitudes.

      Material and methods

      Ten test groups comprising 4 intraoral (I): Medentika L-Series (MS), Straumann CARES Mono (SM), Core 3D (CO), Straumann RC (SS); and 6 laboratory (L): Nobel Procera Pos Locator (NP), Sirona InPost (SR), Amann Girrbach (AG), Straumann CARES Mono (SM), Core 3D (CO), Straumann RC (SS) scan bodies were derived from 7 scan body systems. Of these, 3 systems (SM, CO, SS) are used for both intraoral and laboratory applications. The scan bodies were tested on Straumann Bone Level Regular CrossFit implants or laboratory replicas. Eight test groups allowed for the variation of torque application (5, 10, and 15 Ncm), while 2 test groups (NP, SR) were hand positioned only. Prefabricated metal abutments (ME) for both implants and laboratory replicas served as controls. A coordinate measuring machine measured four 3D positional accuracy variables: vertical linear distortion (dz), 2D tolerance displacement (dr), global linear distortion (dR), and scan body height discrepancy (ΔH) (n=10). The data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance tests and post hoc analysis with Tukey tests (α=.05).


      For both intraoral and laboratory test groups, 2-way ANOVA found that the system had a significant effect on all distortion variables (P<.001), while torque magnitude had a significant effect only on dz and ΔH (P<.001). Overall, mean dz ranged from 5 ±12 μm for L-AG at 15 Ncm to 23 ±14 μm for L-AG at 5 Ncm. Mean dr ranged from 5 ±4 μm for I-SM at 15 Ncm to 73 ±41 μm for L-SS at 10 Ncm, and mean dR ranged from 11 ±6 μm for I-SM at 10 Ncm to 74 ±41 μm for L-SS at 10 Ncm. Mean ΔH ranged from -5 ±10 μm for I-SM at 15 Ncm to 23 ±14 μm for L-AG at 5 Ncm. Among intraoral test groups, for dz and ΔH, all the test groups except for I-SM at 15 Ncm and I-MS at 10 and 15 Ncm were significantly more positive than the control (P<.001). For dr, I-SS at 5, 10, and 15 Ncm was significantly different from the control (P<.001). For dR, only I-SS at 5 Ncm was significantly different from the control (P<.001). Among laboratory test groups, for dz and ΔH, L-AG at 5 Ncm and L-CO at 15 Ncm were significantly more positive than the control (P<.001). For dr, L-SS at 10 and 15 Ncm were significantly different from the control (P<.001). For dR, only L-SS at 10 Ncm was significantly different from the control (P<.001). Intraoral and laboratory systems show comparable 3D positional accuracy.


      Overall, I-SS and L-SS were the least accurate. The system tested had a significant effect on 3D positional accuracy, while torque magnitude had no consistent effect across all systems.
      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


        • Ireland A.J.
        • McNamara C.
        • Clover M.J.
        • House K.
        • Wenger N.
        • Barbour M.E.
        • et al.
        3D surface imaging in dentistry - what we are looking at.
        Br Dent J. 2008; 205: 387-392
        • Mizumoto R.M.
        • Yilmaz B.
        Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 343-352
        • Tan K.B.
        The clinical significance of distortion in implant prosthodontics: is there such a thing as passive fit?.
        Ann Acad Med Singap. 1995; 24: 138-157
        • Sekine H.
        • Komiyama Y.
        • Hotta H.
        • Yoshida K.
        Mobility characteristics and tactile sensitivity of osseointegrated fixture-supporting systems.
        in: van Steenberghe D. Albrektsson T. Braenemark P.I. Henry P.J. Holt R. Liden G. Tissue integration in oral and maxillofacial reconstruction. Proceedings of an International Congress, May 1985. Excerpta Medica, Brussels, Amsterdam1986: 326-332
        • Ma T.
        • Nicholls J.I.
        • Rubenstein J.E.
        Tolerance measurements of various implant components.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 371-375
        • Fokas G.
        • Ma L.
        • Chronopoulos V.
        • Janda M.
        • Mattheos N.
        Differences in micromorphology of the implant–abutment junction for original and third-party abutments on a representative dental implant.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 143-150
        • Jaekel D.J.
        • MacDonald D.W.
        • Kurtz S.M.
        Characterization of PEEK biomaterials using the small punch test.
        J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011; 4: 1275-1282
        • Chivers R.A.
        • Moore D.R.
        The effect of molecular weight and crystallinity on the mechanical properties of injection moulded poly(aryl-ether-ether-ketone) resin.
        Polymer. 1994; 35: 110-116
        • Schwitalla A.D.
        • Spintig T.
        • Kallage I.
        • Müller W.D.
        Pressure behavior of different PEEK materials for dental implants.
        J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016; 54: 295-304
        • Monich P.R.
        • Henriques B.
        • Novaes de Oliveira A.P.
        • Souza J.C.M.
        • Fredel M.C.
        Mechanical and biological behavior of biomedical PEEK matrix composites: a focused review.
        Mater Lett. 2016; 185: 593-597
        • Braian M.
        • De Bruyn H.
        • Fransson H.
        • Christersson C.
        • Wennerberg A.
        Tolerance measurements on internal- and external-hexagon implants.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 846-852
        • Tan M.Y.
        • Yee S.H.X.
        • Wong K.M.
        • Tan Y.H.
        • Tan K.B.C.
        Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 366-380
        • 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
        • Schmidt A.
        • Billig J.W.
        • Schlenz M.A.
        • Rehmann P.
        • Wostmann B.
        Influence of the accuracy of intraoral scanbodies on implant position: differences in manufacturing tolerances.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2019; 32: 430-432
        • Dailey B.
        • Jordan L.
        • Blind O.
        • Tavernier B.
        Axial displacement of abutments into implants and implant replicas, with the tapered cone-screw internal connection, as a function of tightening torque.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24: 251-256
        • Winkler S.
        • Ring K.
        • Ring J.D.
        • Boberick K.G.
        Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: overview.
        J Oral Implantol. 2003; 29: 242-245