Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the

Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an

Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study
Constantin Motel,1 Elena Kirchner,1 Werner Adler,2 Manfred Wichmann,1 & Ragai Edward Matta 1

1
Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital Erlangen, Glueckstraße 11, Erlangen, 91054, Germany
2
Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Universitaetsstraße 22,
Erlangen, 91054, Germany

Keywords
Digital impressions; intraoral scan; precision;
scan abutments; scanning procedure.
Correspondence
Ragai Edward Matta, University Hospital
Erlangen, Dental Clinic 2-Prosthodontics,
Glueckstraße 11, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
E-mail: ragai.matta@uk-erlangen.de
The authors deny any conflicts of interest in
regards to this study.
Abstract
Purpose: Sufficient data are not currently available on how the various geometries
of scan bodies and different scan strategies affect the quality of digital impressions of
implants. The purpose of this study was to present new data on these two topics and
give clinicians a basis for decision making.
Materials and Methods: A titanium master model containing three Nobelreplace
SelectTM implants (Nobelbiocare Services AG, Zurich, Switzerland) was digitized
using an ATOS industrial noncontact scanner. Digitization was repeated three times
with different types of scan bodies integrated into the implants: ELOS A/S, nt-trading
GmbH, and TEAMZIEREIS GmbH. These three scans served as virtual master mod-
els. The titanium master model was then scanned with the TRIOS3 C digital intraoral

[Correction added on 27 January 2020 after
first online publication: In the original
publication, ELOS A/S was incorrectly
referred to as “3Shape” The name has been
corrected throughout the article.]
Accepted November 26, 2019
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13131
scanner (ELOS A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), which was used for two different scan-
ning strategies. Strategy A was a one-step procedure that included both the titanium
master model and the integrated scan bodies. Strategy B comprised two steps. First, a
digital overlay was performed with a scan of the titanium master model without inte-
grated scan bodies. A second scan was performed with the titanium master model and
integrated scan bodies. By repeating both strategies 10 times for each type of scan body,
60 scans were generated and the corresponding standard tessellation language data
sets overlaid with the corresponding virtual master model. Deviations in the resulting
superimpositions were calculated and evaluated separately in the individual axes (x, y,
z) and in three-dimensional space (Euclidean distance). Statistical evaluation was per-
formed using the R-project software. Level of significance was determined at p ࣘ 0.05.
Results: With regard to the geometry of the scan bodies, strategy A significantly
influenced the accuracy of the digital implant impression in regards to Euclidean
distance (p = 0.003). No significant difference was found for strategy B in this context.
Comparing the two scan strategies revealed that strategy A achieved significantly
higher accuracy overall (p = 0.031).
Conclusion: The quality of digital intraoral impressions seems to be influenced by
both the geometry of the scan body and the scan strategy. For clinical practice, the
one-step scan strategy seems beneficial. Furthermore, the scan bodies of ELOS A/S
showed a potential clinical advantage.

In dentistry, implant-supported prostheses can be produced ac-
cording to a conventional or digital workflow. In each case,
impression making is the first step prior to the subsequent fab-
rication of a dental prosthesis.1 Both processes have specific
advantages and disadvantages. The conventional procedure is
based on decades of experience and refined procedures, though
mistakes still occur in the context of implant dentistry, such as
displacement of scan abutments or dental stone expansion.2,3
The digital workflow has advantages in reproducibility and
quality standardization, but one main disadvantage is that devi-
ations in the digital impression can lead to clinically unaccept-
able errors.4,5
CAD/CAM technology predominates the production pro-
cess, as better quality control can be delivered with less time
and material expenditure than conventional production (lost-
wax fabrication method),5 and can therefore be regarded as

Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020) 309–314  C 2019 Universitätsklinikum Erlangen/Department of Prosthdontics. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley 309
Periodicals Inc. on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

JUAN ANDRES ESPINOZA - juanandresro93@gmail.com - IP: 186.43.179.203

 Impact of Scan Bodies on Digital Impressions
very well established. A highly precise virtual model is neces-
sary for a passive fit and outcome for implant-based prostheses
on the CAD/CAM side.2 The virtual model can be obtained
by scanning either a plaster model or the physical impression
made using a conventional impression method. Dentistry cur-
rently utilizes direct digitalization of the mouth situation (in-
traoral scanning).6 Various studies of conventional impression
techniques have discussed the open tray technique and closed
technique. In this context, the open tray technique, has been
shown to be superior to the closed tray technique.2,7,8 Further-
more, the kind of impression material, implant level, implant
angulation, and transfer copings influence the accuracy of the
conventional impression.1,9 One study demonstrated no signif-
icant difference in the marginal discrepancy of conventional
impressions depending on the implant or abutment level.10
However, a comparatively simple procedure and esthetic ad-
vantages were demonstrated for the abutment level in a differ-
ent study.11 A conventional impression can be scanned digitally
or used to produce a plaster model by conventional methods.
The plaster model fabrication is related to expansion failure.12
Nevertheless, the conventional method is still the gold standard
for taking impressions.6 The digital impression technique has
emerged as a clinical alternative especially for single implant-
supported restorations and short-span fixed dentures (FDRs).13
Both methods have been evaluated in serval studies, with the
conventional impression method achieving the most accurate
working cast in most studies.8,14 In a recent review, the authors
compared the conventional and digital impression techniques;
they preferred the digital impression technique for implant-
supported crowns, and short FDRs.15 In the digital impression
technique, a virtual impression of the oral situation is created
using an intraoral scanner. Modern digital intraoral scanners
use different techniques to obtain digital impressions. Confocal
laser technology, which is used in the TRIOS3 C digital intrao-
ral scanner by ELOS A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark), and active
triangulation, as used in the CEREC Omnicam (Sirona Dental
Systems GmbH; Bensheim, Germany), are examples of mod-
ern practical realization of digital impressions. It is necessary to
learn and practice manual skills for digital impression-taking,16
but digital intraoral scanners are well accepted by dentists and
students.17 A great advantage in this context is the relatively
short time required for a digital impression,17 but specific tech-
nical difficulties and error susceptibilities occur with digital
intraoral scanners.7,16,18 For example, the influence of angula-
tion on the accuracy of an intraoral scan has been investigated
several times with varying results.7,19,20 All in all, this leads
to the currently intensive discussion on the topic of intraoral
scanning in general and its respective pros and cons.
In the field of implant dentistry, standardized scan bodies,
which enable a computer-based determination of the actual
implant position using data obtained from digital intrao-
ral scanners, have been developed and established for the
market.21,22 Various studies have evaluated the accuracy of dig-
ital impressions concerning the length of the scan bodies and
their respective distance, or their angulation.21,23,24 However,
scan bodies from different manufacturers differ in their charac-
teristic geometry.25 Data on how the geometries of implant scan
bodies influence the accuracy of an impression obtained using
a digital intraoral scanner are scarce. A review has already
310 Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020) 309–314 
C 2019 Universitätsklinikum Erlangen/Department of Prosthdontics. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley
JUAN ANDRES ESPINOZA - juanandresro93@gmail.com - IP: 186.43.179.203
Motel et al
shown that more detailed investigations on this topic would be
helpful for more accurate reproduction of the implant locus.26
This study was dedicated to this topic and focused on which
scan strategy should be used to obtain an impression of dental
implants using intraoral scanning technology. Two of the differ-
ent scan strategies that have been established were evaluated,
as hardly any data are available in the field of digital impres-
sions concerning scan strategies. Previous studies have com-
pared, for example, powder-free digital impressions to those
made with powder and shown differences, which represents a
more technical than procedural approach.27,28 In addition, very
little is known about the order in which the quadrants, teeth,
and tooth surfaces should be scanned.27,29 In literature, com-
parisons between one-step and two-step digital impressions
are not yet available. This study aims to evaluate whether the
geometries of the different scan bodies and the scan strategy
employed affect the accuracy of a digital intraoral impression
of inserted implants. The evaluation method used was already
established in earlier studies and works with an industrial non-
contact scanner.2,30 The null hypothesis was that the accuracy
of digital impressions does not differ based on the geometry of
the scan bodies or the scan strategy.
Materials and methods
This in vitro study examined two different aspects. First, it was
evaluated whether the geometry of three differently shaped
scan bodies affects the accuracy of digital implant impressions
(group 1: ELOS A/S, Denmark; group 2: NT-Trading GmbH,
Germany; group 3: TeamZiereis, Germany). The scan bodies
of group 1 were relatively flat and cylindrical with a partially
beveled upper part. Those of group 2 had a comparatively in-
terrupted, uneven shape with bulges and indentations, which
were cylindrical in the cervical area and slightly oval in the
coronal area. The scan bodies of group 3 had an overall cylin-
drical shape with one retraction each and a slightly enlarged
coronal diameter, with a shape that was between groups 1 and
2 (Fig 1). Second, this study investigated to what extent two
different scan strategies influence the quality of the impression
obtained using an intraoral scanner. It was evaluated whether
the accuracy of a one-step scan strategy differed significantly
from a two-step procedure.
A titanium master model was made in which three titanium
bone level implants (Nobelreplace SelectTM , Nobelbiocare Ser-
vices AG, Zurich, Switzerland) with a diameter of 4.3 mm and
length of 11 mm were placed and welded in a linear arrange-
ment at different distances and angulations in order to ensure a
standardized experimental set-up. The large scan area was cho-
sen because it corresponded with recommendations for digital
impressions up to the size of a short-span bridge.15 The mesial
Figure 1 Geometry of scan bodies. (A) ELOS A/S, (B) nt-trading, (C)
TeamZiereis.
Periodicals Inc. on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists
 Motel et al Impact of Scan Bodies on Digital Impressions

implant (implant 1) was angulated at an angle of 15° in the

oro-vestibular direction. Central implant 2 and distal implant
3 were inserted vertically into the titanium model. The dis-
tance between implants 1 and 2 was 9.5 mm, and the distance
between implants 2 and 3 was 14.3 mm, measured from the
respective centers of their scan bodies. The titanium model
was scanned using the ATOS So4 II (GOM GmbH, Braun-
schweig, Germany) industrial white light scanner, which cre-
ates three-dimensional virtual models of scan objects with a Figure 2 Illustration of scan strategy A.
deviation of less than 4 µm. Due to the relatively flat shape
of the titanium model, self-adhesive GOM reference points
(GOM GmBH, Braunschweig, Germany) were attached to the
model to ensure three-dimensional orientation of the ATOS
scanner. The GOM reference points served to align the gen-
erated virtual master model data in a three-dimensional point
cloud (Fig 1). A total of three of these virtual master models
with screwed scan bodies were created, one for each type of
scan body. The generated files were saved in STL format us-
ing the ATOS Professional Software (V7.5 SR2, GOM GmbH,
Braunschweig, Germany) and served as a reference to which
the digital impressions made by the intraoral scanner were
compared.
The TRIOS R
3 intraoral scanner (ELOS A/S, Copenhagen,
Denmark; software version 1.6.4) was used to obtain virtual Figure 3 Illustration of scan strategy B.
models. Two different scan strategies were applied in this study.
The first scan strategy, strategy A, included both the ridge of
the titanium master model and the integrated scan bodies in a
single step (Fig. 2). In the second strategy, strategy B, two dif-
ferent steps were necessary to obtain a virtual model. In the first
step, the titanium master model was scanned without the scan
bodies (emergence profile scan). In the next step, the first scan
was uploaded and the position of the implant marked manu-
ally. The software then recognized the position and deleted the
virtual implant surface. Finally, the model was scanned with
the screwed scan bodies and the TRIOS software matched both
scan files into one. An operational overview of the workflow is
illustrated in Figure 3.
In order to obtain statistically evaluable data, ten scans were Figure 4 Exemplary representation of the virtual calculation of three-
performed for each combination of scan strategy and the dif- dimensional deviations. (A) Superimposition of the virtual master model
ferent scan bodies, producing a total of 60 scan files. The scan and one digital impression, (B) zoomed view of the deviation of the
bodies were removed and relocated between scans using hand- measuring points.
tight torque because a torque wrench could not be used with the
scan bodies of group 1. Each scan was converted into an STL file
and loaded into the ATOS Professional software. To compare Deviations along all three axes (x, y, and z), as well as the
the impressions made using the TRIOS intraoral scanner and Euclidean distance (dXYZ), were calculated and documented
the virtual master model, each impression was superimposed in every case and for each of the three integrated implants.
onto its corresponding digital pattern using ATOS Professional The x-axis represents the oro-vestibular direction, the y-axis
Software and a local best fit performed. In order to calculate represents the mesio-distal direction, and the z-axis represents
the deviations, the digital equivalent of each scan body in each the vertical direction. Thus, these three axes each represent
scan and the three virtual master models were standardized to the deviation in one spatial dimension. The Euclidian distance,
a fitting cylinder, and a plane intersecting the upper edge of on the other hand, describes the deviation in three-dimensional
the respective cylinder was digitally constructed. The deviation space, which was calculated as a vector calculation of the three-
was calculated on the basis of the center of this plane related dimensional offset.
to the cross-section of the fitting cylinder and represents the The results were evaluated statistically using the program R
distance of the centers of the intraoral scans compared to the ver. 3.6.1 (R Core Team (2019), R Foundation for Statistical
centers in the corresponding virtual master model. Figure 4 Computing, Vienna, Austria). Mixed effects linear regression
shows an example of the measuring points in the center of the models were used to calculate significance, as these were repeat
planes of the superimposed virtual master model and digital im- measurements. For this reason, a test for normality was not
pression. Comparable methods were established previously.2,30 necessary. The significance level was defined as p ࣘ 0.05.

Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020) 309–314  C 2019 Universitätsklinikum Erlangen/Department of Prosthdontics. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley 311
Periodicals Inc. on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists

JUAN ANDRES ESPINOZA - juanandresro93@gmail.com - IP: 186.43.179.203

 Impact of Scan Bodies on Digital Impressions Motel et al

Results
For the Euclidean distance, scan strategy A demonstrated sig-
nificantly higher accuracy for the combination of all three scan
bodies in this context (p = 0.031), with a mean deviation of
71 µm. Scan strategy B produced more deviation than strategy
A overall (mean deviation = 125 µm). Within scan strategy
B, no significant discrepancies regarding the scan bodies were
observed in the digital impressions (p = 0.249). In contrast,
with strategy A, significant deviations in the accuracy of digi-
tal impression data compared to the virtual master model were
observed for the three groups of scan bodies and different axes
(p = 0.003).
Regarding the Euclidean distance using strategy A, sig-
nificant differences in accuracy were examined between the
scan bodies of groups 1 and 2, and between groups 2 and
3. No significant differences were observed between groups
1 and 3. The lowest deviation was found in group 1 (mean
deviation = 0.041 mm), whereas group 2 had the highest Figure 5 Box-whisker-plots of deviance for all three groups of scan
deviation (mean deviation = 0.112 mm). This examination bodies in Euclidean distance. Red: group 1 (ELOS A/S); green: group 2
revealed significant differences in the deviances of digital (nt-trading); blue: group 3 (TeamZiereis).
impressions in the x- and z-axis when scan strategy A was
used. No significant differences in accuracy were found recently showed that the digital impression is currently the least
concerning the y-axis, which represents the mesio-distal accurate impression technique, and the open tray impression
direction. Regarding the x-axis (oro-vestibular direction), scan technique the most accurate. The closed tray technique has sim-
bodies from group 1 demonstrated higher accuracy with 0.015 ilar deviations as the open tray technique.8 These results lead
mm compared to group 2 (0.076 mm) and group 3 (0.035 mm). to the question of which deviations are clinically acceptable. In
No significant difference was observed between groups 2 and the case of conventional impression-making, Papaspyridakos
3. Concerning vertical deviations depicted by the z-axis, scan et al reported deviations in the Euclidean distance of 44 µm
bodies from groups 1 (0.015 mm) and 3 (0.014 mm) revealed on average, with splinted full-arch impressions in a study
significantly fewer inaccuracies than those from group 2
(0.040 mm), and no significant differences were found
between groups 1 and 3.
The results including p-values of both scan strategies and all
three different scan bodies are visualized in in a box-whisker-
plot (Fig 5). The deviations and p-values with regard to the
scan bodies used and to the spatial axes for scan strategy A are
visualized in box-whisker-plots (Fig 6). For scan strategy B, no
p-values concerning spatial axes are shown, as no significance
could be demonstrated within this procedure (deviances are
shown in Fig 7).

Discussion
Figure 6 Box-whisker-plots of deviance for all three scan bodies in vari-
In this study, a scan area consisting of three implants with two ous axes and Euclidean distance for scan strategy A.
switching gaps was examined. This setup is based on recom-
mendations for the size of digitally captured restoration areas
in the range of short-span bridges.15 The method for determin-
ing the deviations in digital impressions using a noncontact,
industrial white light scanner was established previously and
modified for this study.2 This method made it possible to place
a virtual standardized central point in the upper vertical plane
of each scan body in each digital impression and determine its
deviation from the corresponding virtual central point in the
master model in the x, y, z axes and the Euclidean distance.
The maximum deviation of this method is 4 µm.31
In order to classify the digital impression and the results of
this work, the results must be compared to examinations of the Figure 7 Box-whisker-plots of deviance for all three scan bodies in vari-
gold standard, the conventional impression. Alsharbaty et al ous axes and Euclidean distance for scan strategy B.

312 Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020) 309–314 

C 2019 Universitätsklinikum Erlangen/Department of Prosthdontics. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley
Periodicals Inc. on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists

JUAN ANDRES ESPINOZA - juanandresro93@gmail.com - IP: 186.43.179.203

 Motel et al
based on the principle of virtual 3D superimposition.32 In
comparison, this study revealed a deviation of 71 µm for
scan strategy A and 125 µm for scan strategy B for a smaller
scanned area. Significant differences were found only within
strategy A, including the different scan bodies. These must be
considered individually in this context. Using the scan bodies
of group 1, an average 3D deviation of 41 µm was found within
strategy A, which is comparable to the conventional technique.
The scan bodies of groups 2 and 3 led to larger deviations,
representing significantly lower accuracy than the conventional
technique. Within scan strategy B, no group of scan bodies
could achieve accuracy comparable to the conventional
technique.
If the deviation in the individual spatial axes is considered
instead of the Euclidean distance, conventional impressions ex-
hibit different deviations for the respective axes. In accordance
with Papaspyridakos et al, the z-axis representing the vertical
direction had the smallest deviations for all tested scan bodies,
and for both scan strategies.32 A high deviation in this axis can
be critical for an insufficient connection between implant and
abutment in clinical practice.33 With regard to Papaspyridakos,
in this spatial axis, the results of this study are of a comparable
order of magnitude for the scan bodies of groups 1 and 3 using
strategy A.32 Concerning scan strategy B, a significantly lower
accuracy was shown.
However, large differences were found between the scan bod-
ies and scan strategies used, which was reflected in large and
significantly different deviations. Notably, hardly any data are
available on comparisons of the individual spatial axes of con-
ventional impressions.
Studies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanners have
demonstrated large differences in the deviations. Rutkunas et
al showed that these deviations are within a range of 6 µm to
337 µm and depend, for example, on the size of the scan field,
the angulation, the scanner used, the scan strategy, and the scan
bodies. That review also showed that current intraoral scan-
ners can achieve clinically acceptable accuracy for multi-unit
implant-supported restorations in in vitro examinations, which
is partially consistent with the results of this study.34 Thus, fur-
ther study is needed on deviations from digital impressions of
comparable magnitude to this study. Here, the accuracy of the
digital impression is not yet sufficient to produce well-fitting
restorations for partially edentulous patients.8
For digital intraoral scanners, very little is known of the accu-
racy in individual axes. In a study investigating the accuracy of
full-arch scans, overall larger deviations were found than in this
study, which could be related to the choice of a larger scan field.
The smallest deviation for the z-axis was also found here, which
corresponds to the results of this study.35 Therefore, compared
to conventional impression-making, digital impression-making
in the context of this study had very heterogeneous results.
With regard to the geometries of the various scan bodies
within the scope of this study, the scan bodies with a com-
paratively flatter and simpler structure were associated with
significantly smaller deviations within the digital impressions.
Due to the higher precision of scan strategy A, in combination
with an advantageous scan body, the strategy may possibly lead
to better results in clinical everyday life and achieve compa-
Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020) 309–314  C 2019 Universitätsklinikum Erlangen/Department of Prosthdontics. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley
Periodicals Inc. on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists
JUAN ANDRES ESPINOZA - juanandresro93@gmail.com - IP: 186.43.179.203
Impact of Scan Bodies on Digital Impressions
rable accuracy to conventional impression-making, at least for
smaller scan areas as examined in this study. The lower ac-
curacy of scan strategy B could be due to the more complex
calculation of the digital impression, as two individual scans
are matched, which could lead to errors. In the final analysis,
the null hypothesis, according to which there is no difference
between the scan bodies and the scan strategies in terms of the
resulting accuracy, must be rejected.
This study is limited by the in vitro design, in which three
implants were inserted linearly in a simplified jaw model. This
greatly simplified impression-making with the intraoral scan-
ner. In addition, the results of this study apply only to the
intraoral scanner used and the corresponding scan bodies. In
clinical practice, practitioners are confronted with more com-
plex oral situations, which limits the comparability of this study
to clinical reality. However, this study could help in making a
decision about scan bodies and the scan strategy in daily prac-
tice by recommendations made in the conclusions. Further in
vitro and in vivo studies are needed to investigate the results of
this work.
Conclusions
The intraoral scanner used for this study was able to obtain
digital impressions with acceptable accuracy in the experimen-
tal set-up. Since the single-stage strategy showed significantly
better results, it may should be preferred in clinical practice.
At the same time, the high accuracy in the use of ELOS A/S’s
scan bodies leads to a corresponding clinical recommendation.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Ralf Schafmeister and To-
bias Radler, together with GOM Gmbh (Braunschweig, Ger-
many), for metrological support. This work was performed by
Dr. Motel in fulfillment of the requirements for obtaining the
degree “Dr. med.”
References
1. Flugge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, et al: The accuracy of
different dental impression techniques for implant-supported
dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin
Oral Implants Res 2018;29(Suppl 16):374-392
2. Matta RE, Adler W, Wichmann M, et al: Accuracy of impression
scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions. J
Prosthet Dent 2017;117:507-512
3. Memari Y, Mohajerfar M, Armin A, et al: Marginal adaptation of
CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns made by different impression
methods: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e536-e544
4. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, et al:
Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning
multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J
Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-194
5. Li Y, Han W, Cao J, et al: Design of complete dentures by
adopting CAD developed for fixed prostheses. J Prosthodont
2018;27:212-219
6. Runkel C, Guth JF, Erdelt K, et al: Digital impressions in
dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop
scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2019
313
 Impact of Scan Bodies on Digital Impressions
7. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, et al: Digital versus
conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients:
accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-472
8. Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, et al: A clinical
comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital
and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont
2019;28:e902-e908
9. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, et al: Accuracy of digital
versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res
2015;26:715-719
10. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Monzavi A, et al: Three-dimensional
accuracy of implant and abutment level impression techniques:
effect on marginal discrepancy. J Oral Implantol
2011;37:649-657
11. Kutkut A, Abu-Hammad O, Frazer R: A simplified technique for
implant-abutment level impression after soft tissue adaptation
around provisional restoration. Dent J (Basel) 2016;4:14
12. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, et al: Accuracy testing of a new
intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28
13. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, et al: Accuracy and precision of
3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a
novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018;69:110-118
14. Ender A, Mehl A: Accuracy of complete-arch dental
impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-128
15. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, et al: Digital versus conventional
impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont
2018;27:35-41
16. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, et al: Accuracy of a
digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling
technology for implants considering operator experience, implant
angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
2015;17(Suppl 1):e54-64
17. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, et al: Time efficiency, difficulty, and
operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant
impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants
Res 2017;28:1318-1323
18. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M: Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a
systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont
Restor Dent 2018;26:101-121
19. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, et al: Accuracy of digital vs
conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional
comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
2017;32:792-799
20. Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, et al: Evaluation of the
accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for
implant restorations. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e530-e535
21. Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, et al: Precision of dental
implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont
2016;29:277-283
314 Journal of Prosthodontics 29 (2020) 309–314 
C 2019 Universitätsklinikum Erlangen/Department of Prosthdontics. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley
JUAN ANDRES ESPINOZA - juanandresro93@gmail.com - IP: 186.43.179.203
Motel et al
22. von See C, Wagner ME, Schumann P, et al: Non-radiological
method for three-dimensional implant position evaluation using
an intraoral scan method. Clin Oral Implants Res
2014;25:1091-1093
23. Chia VA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, et al: In vitro three-dimensional
accuracy of digital
implant impressions: the effect of implant angulation. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:313-321
24. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, et al: Accuracy of a
digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling
technology for implants considering operator experience, implant
angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
2015;17(Suppl 1):54-64
25. Fluegge T, Att W, Metzger M, et al: A novel method to evaluate
precision of optical implant impressions with commercial
scan bodies-an experimental approach. J Prosthodont 2017;26:
34-41
26. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B: Intraoral scan bodies in implant
dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-352
27. Ender A, Mehl A: Influence of scanning strategies on the
accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent
2013;16:11-21
28. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA, Jr., et al: Accuracy
of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for
complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent
2019
29. Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, et al: Impact of digital intraoral scan
strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod
scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343-349
30. Matta RE, Bergauer B, Adler W, et al: The impact of the
fabrication method on the three-dimensional accuracy of an
implant surgery template. J Craniomaxillofac Surg
2017;45:804-808
31. Holst S, Karl M, Wichmann M, et al: A new triple-scan protocol
for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations. Quintessence Int
2011;42:651-657
32. Papaspyridakos P, Benic GI, Hogsett VL, et al: Accuracy
of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted
impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical
scanning study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:676-681
33. Buzayan M, Baig MR, Yunus N: Evaluation of accuracy
of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant
impressions using different impression and splinting materials.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1512-1520
34. Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, et al: Accuracy of
digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic
review.Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10(Suppl 1):101-120
35. Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, et al: A new method for the
evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in
vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1487-1494
Periodicals Inc. on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists