What question did this study set out to answer?

February 21, 2026Open Access

Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using conventional scanbodies, ScanTransfers, and splinted ScanTransfers: an in vitro study

NANarciso Real AndradeUniversidad Complutense de Madrid MGMaría Isabel Albanchez GonzálezUniversidad Complutense de Madrid SMSeyed Ali MosaddadUniversidad Complutense de Madrid

Key Points

The study aims to assess the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using different scanbody configurations.
Used edentulous maxillary and mandibular models with six implants each.
Compared three scanbody configurations: conventional scanbodies, ScanTransfers, and splinted ScanTransfers.
Employed two intraoral scanners: 3Shape® TRIOS® 4 and Medit® i700 Wireless.
Quantified trueness and precision using root-mean-square deviations.
Conducted statistical analysis using Kruskal–Wallis H and Mann–Whitney U tests.
SST showed the highest trueness (78.54 ± 20.71 μm) and precision (63.40 ± 18.30 μm).
Significant differences in accuracy between scanbody configurations (p < 0.001).
No significant accuracy differences between maxillary and mandibular arches (p > 0.05).
TRIOS® 4 had significantly higher precision than Medit® i700 Wireless (p = 0.006).
All accuracy values were within previously reported ranges.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of complete-arch digital implant impressions obtained using various scanbody configurations, and to assess the influence of the scanned arch and intraoral scanner on accuracy. This study used edentulous maxillary and mandibular resin models with six implants per arch. Three scanbody configurations were evaluated: conventional scanbodies (SB), ScanTransfers (ST), and splinted ScanTransfers (SST). Each configuration was applied to both arches and scanned using two intraoral scanners (3Shape® TRIOS® 4 and Medit® i700 Wireless). Fifteen scans were obtained per subgroup. Reference datasets were acquired using a laboratory scanner. Trueness and precision were quantified as root-mean-square (RMS) deviations after three-dimensional alignment. Statistical analysis included the Kruskal–Wallis H test and Mann–Whitney U test, with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05). Scanbody configuration significantly influenced both trueness and precision (p 0.05), or between scanners (p = 0.198); however, precision was significantly higher with the TRIOS® 4 than with the Medit® i700 Wireless (p = 0.006). All accuracy values fell within previously reported ranges. Scanbody design and splinting influence the reliability of complete-arch digital implant impressions, while arch type appears to have a limited impact. Scanner-related differences may affect reproducibility.

AI에게 질문

Bookmark

View Full Paper