Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 17, 2025
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to
Mohsin Shaikh1, Tabrez Lakha1, Supriya Kheur2
1Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, M.A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
Aim:
The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of conventional implant impressions with digital impression techniques made using two different intraoral scanners.
Setting And Design:
In-Vitro study.
Material And Methods:
A scan of master cast containing four implants was made using two intraoral scanners: CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, USA) and 3Shape Trios (Copenhagen, Denmark) with PEEK scan bodies attached to the implants. Model was scanned ten times using different scanners. The accuracy of the chairside scanners was compared with highly accurate laboratory scanner. The scans were transferred into the software (Geomagic Control X 20, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for analysis. The linear deviations and the angular deviations between the scans (scan of each model made using high-definition scanner and the master model scan) were calculated to determine the accuracy. Trueness was used as a parameter to compare the accuracy of different scanners (comparing test and reference).
Statistical Analysis:
Analysis of variance was performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test for multiple group comparisons.
Results:
Distribution of the mean overall absolute linear deviation was significantly lower in the conventional impression group compared to the CEREC Primescan scanner group and 3Shape Trios group (P < 0.05 for both). Distribution of the mean overall absolute linear deviation was significantly lower in the CEREC Primescan scanner group compared to the 3Shape Trios group (P < 0.05). Distribution of the mean overall absolute angular deviation did not differ between the three groups (P > 0.05 for all).
Conclusion:
Conventional impressions showed significantly greater accuracy compared to the digital impressions made with both the above intraoral scanners for implant-supported restoration of an edentulous arch. In addition, the digital impressions with the CEREC Primescan scanner showed greater accuracy as compared to the 3Shape Trios scanner.
