Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 15, 2026
Pilot In Vitro Study to Assess Cleaning Ability and Effects of Different Decontamination Methods on Implant Surfaces
Published on: November 21, 2025
Accuracy of single implant scans with an intermediate abutment-healing cap system. An in vitro study
Spyridon Avgoustis1, Phophi Kamposiora2, Ioannis Papathanasiou3
1Postgraduate student, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Objectives:
To assess the accuracy of single-implant digital impressions using a novel intermediate abutment-healing cap system and different intraoral scanners.
Methods:
A partially edentulous maxillary model with a single molar implant was fabricated and an intermediate abutment-healing cap system was secured onto the implant (i-Cervico, VP Innovato Holdings LTD). The model was initially scanned using a laboratory scanner (E4 lab scanner, 3Shape), using a titanium scan post to generate the reference digital model. Subsequently, the model was scanned with three different intraoral scanners (3Shape TRIOS 3, Medit i700 and Dexis IS 3800). For each intraoral scanner, 16 test scans were obtained. All generated standard tessellation language (STL) files were imported into a reverse engineering software (Geomagic Control X, Hexagon AB). Root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessments. One-way ANOVA, Tukey post hoc tests and t-tests were performed for statistical analyses (a = 0.05).
Results:
The mean trueness RMS values were 173 ± 51 μm for Trios 3, 165 ± 33 μm for i700, and 171 ± 51 μm for IS 3800, with no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). The mean precision RMS values were 94 ± 32 μm for Trios 3, 97 ± 32 μm for i700, and 60 ± 31 μm for IS 3800, with IS 3800 showing a significantly lower mean value (p < 0.05). T-tests showed no statistically significant differences in trueness RMS values among the three scanners when compared to clinically acceptable threshold of 150 μm (p > 0.05), whereas all groups exhibited significantly lower precision RMS values than the threshold (p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
Single implant scans using the intermediate abutment-healing cap system with different intraoral scanners shared equal trueness while scans captured with the Dexis IS 3800 showed higher precision than the other scanners. All intraoral scanners tested produced single implant scans with clinically acceptable accuracy.
Clinical Significance:
The intermediate abutment-healing cap system can be recommended for single implant intraoral scans with clinically acceptable scanning accuracy. However, further clinical studies are needed to verify this assumption for this newly introduced system.
