Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between intraoral scanning and conventional
Min Liu1, Jun-Yu Shi1, Xiao-Jiao Fu1
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, China; Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, China; College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China; National Center for Stomatology, China; National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, China; Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, China.
Objective:
To compare framework passive fit, subjective evaluations, and short-term clinical outcomes between conventional impressions (CI) and intraoral scanning (IOS) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs).
Methods:
In this randomized controlled trial, 22 patients were allocated to the CI or IOS groups. All participants received a definitive one-piece CIFDP. The primary outcome was framework passive fit, assessed using the Vision and Tactile Score (V&T score), which included framework lift-off, the single-screw test, the full-screw test, smoothness of screw insertion, and radiographic gap assessment. Secondary outcomes included operator evaluation, patient satisfaction using a visual analog scale (VAS), early implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), modified Plaque Index (mPII), and complications at the 6-month follow-up.
Results:
Twenty-two patients were enrolled (CI: n = 11; IOS: n = 11), and one patient in the CI group was lost to follow-up. No statistically significant difference in the V&T score was observed between the CI and IOS groups (4.66 ± 0.17 vs. 4.65 ± 0.28; P = 0.93). The operator reported greater nervousness during the CI procedure than during IOS (21.82 ± 15.69 vs. 8.64 ± 7.47; P < 0.05). Patients in the CI group reported significantly greater discomfort, including nausea and anxiety, than those in the IOS group (P < 0.05). At the 6-month follow-up, the early implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. No significant differences were found between the groups in MBL (0.09 ± 0.09 vs. 0.06 ± 0.10 mm; P = 0.43) or mPII (0.10 ± 0.12 vs. 0.10 ± 0.28; P = 0.99).
Conclusion:
IOS and CI achieved comparable short-term clinical outcomes in patients who met the predefined inclusion criteria, including controlled implant number, spacing, and angulation. IOS provided a more favorable experience for both operators and patients.
Clinical Significance:
In complete-arch implant restorations, intraoral scanning may provide clinical outcomes comparable to those of conventional impressions while improving patient comfort.