Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 18, 2025
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
In vivo trueness and precision of full-arch implant scans using intraoral scanners with three different acquisition
Robert Nedelcu1, Pontus Olsson2, Måns Thulin3
1Department of Surgical Sciences, Plastic & Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Uppsala University, 751 85 Uppsala, Sweden; UWA Dental School, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia.
Objectives:
To evaluate an in situ reference acquisition method for implant positions in complete edentulous maxillae using an industrial scanner and allowing for in vivo trueness analysis of the restorative workflow. To assess in vivo trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS) using different acquisition protocols. Furthermore, to compare IOS trueness with impression-based models and implant-supported fixed dentures (IFD) in a parallel study on the same cohort using the same in situ reference scan.
Methods:
Six scan-bodies mounted to maxillary implants in five subjects were reference scanned (REF) using an industrial scanner. Subjects were scanned with IOS three times using three different protocols: control (CT), dental floss assisted (DF), and acrylic splint (SP). CAD-files of scan-bodies with inter-aligned analogues were geometry-aligned to REF, and SP. Scan-bodies were aligned to CT and DF in proprietary dental laboratory software and exported with analogue positions. Resulting six CAD-analogues per scan were Globally Aligned using a consistent geometry-based alignment. Deviations were computed after a Reference Point System Alignment at the implant/prosthetic platform for Cartesian axes with a linear Resultant.
Results:
Resultant trueness was CT: 41±11 µm, DF: 49±22 µm, SP: 55±8 µm. Resultant precision was CT: 48±7 µm, DF: 50±7 µm, SP: 45±6 µm.
Conclusions:
This method is applicable for assessing trueness of maxillary full-arch implant scans in vivo. The CT protocol was most accurate. CT trueness showed no difference to digitised impression-based models in parallel study. CT was more accurate than IFD in a parallel study. CT displayed similar numerical trueness as existing in vitro studies.
Clinical Significance:
Using IOS to acquire full-arch implant scans is controversial. The modified protocol in this pilot shows promising results in the maxilla where great care was taken to manage non-attached tissues when a modified scanning pattern was used. However, other IOS may show varying results in vivo. A completed scan does not necessarily equate to an accurate scan.
