Comparison of 3D accuracy of three different digital intraoral scanners in full-arch implant impressions

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0 degrees, 5 degrees, 0 degrees, 0 degrees, 15 degrees, and 0 degrees in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 mu m, the values of 104 mu m and 171 mu m were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively ( P =.001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners ( P <.001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185 degrees, the values of 0.499 degrees and 1.250 degrees were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values ( P >.05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group. [J Adv Prosthodont 2023;15:179-88]