Conventional and digital complete arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy

Statement of problem: Varying complete arch digital-implant-scanning techniques have been described, but their accuracy remains uncertain. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of the implant angulation and impression method (conventional, intraoral digital scan, intraoral scan with a splinting framework, and combining cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and intraoral scan) on the accuracy of complete arch implant recording. Material and methods: The following 2 casts were obtained: one with 4 parallel (P group) and the other with 4 angled (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group). Both the casts were digitized (7Series Scanner) (control file). The following 4 subgroups were created: conventional polyether impression with a splinted framework (CNV subgroup), intraoral scan (IOS subgroup), intraoral scan with a splinting framework (S-IOS subgroup), and intraoral scan combined with CBCT scan (CBCT-IOS subgroup) (n=10). For each file, an implant-supported bar was designed and imported into a program (Netfabb) to perform linear and angular interimplant abutment measurements. Two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and Tukey tests were selected to examine the data (alpha=.05). Results: Implant angulation (P=.010) and impression method (P=.003) significantly influenced the linear trueness. The P group (112 mu m) obtained better linear trueness than the NP group (144 mu m). The CNV subgroup obtained the best linear trueness, while the IOS and CBCT-IOS showed the worst trueness. Group (P<.001) significantly influenced angular trueness. Group (P=.009) and subgroup (P<.001) influenced the linear precision. The P group (72 mu m) obtained better linear precision than the NP group (91 mu m). The IOS subgroup obtained the best linear precision. Group (P=.034) significantly influenced the angular precision. The P group (0.46 degrees) had higher angular precision compared with the NP group (0.60 degrees). Conclusions: Implant angulation and the impression methods tested, impacted the accuracy of the complete arch implant recording. Parallel implants had better trueness and precision values than nonparallel implants. The conventional impression method showed the best trueness and precision. Among the digital implant scan methods assessed, the S-IOS and CBCT-IOS subgroups acquired significantly better trueness and precision than the IOS subgroup.