Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Digital Intraoral Impression Methods: an Update on Accuracy

  • Dental Restorative Materials (M Özcan & P Cesar, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Oral Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The increased implementation of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in different dental fields has created the need for IOS’s accuracy assessment by the scientific community. Hence, the aim of this literature review is to provide the current ``state of the art´´ regarding the accuracy of optical impression systems.

Recent Findings

The reported IOS’s accuracy in dentistry is highly variable and controversial among studies. Researches performed either in vitro or in vivo considering digital intraoral impressions a valuable alternative to conventional impression techniques; however, the clinical situation has to be taken into consideration. Most studies coincide that IOSs show highly accurate results when partial-arch scans are performed, whereas in cross-arch scans especially in implant dentistry, the choice of a complete digital workflow sometimes has to be avoided if the clinical situation is highly challenging.

Summary

New versions of IOSs guarantee scan accuracy in most clinical situations. However, blood and saliva in prepared teeth impressions continue affecting the reading of the surfaces. On the other hand, multiple implant scenarios in edentulous mandibular arches still result in accuracy limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Mangano Guest Editor F. Digital dentistry: the revolution has begun. Open Dent J. 2018;12:59–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. • Mangano C, Luongo F, Migliario M, Mortellaro C, Mangano FG. Combining intraoral scans, cone beam computed tomography and face scans: the virtual patient. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(8):2241–559. - The procedure of superimposition of data from CBCT, IOS, and FS is currently feasible and it is now possible to create a 3D “virtual patient” to better diagnose, plan the treatment, and communicate with patients. - State of the Art.

  3. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:8427595.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. • Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardó A, Camps I. Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners incomplete-arch impressions. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(4):e361–6. - Accuracy / resolution. - 4 IOS-s. - Complete-arch impressions. - State of the art.

  5. Kihara H, Hatakeyama W, Komine F, Takafuji K, Takahashi T, Yokota J, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: a literature review. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;64(2):109–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(2):101–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Suese K. Progress in digital dentistry: the practical use of intraoral scanners. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):52–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J. 2018;12:118–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. • Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(2):225–32. - Experience of the practitioner. - The newer system offered better trueness and precision and was less likely to be influenced by the length of clinical career or the region being scanned. - Greater time efficiency in impression taking.

  11. •• Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flügge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D, et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):436–42. - CBCT digital vs. Conventional implant planning. - Digital vs. Conventional impressions. - Patient-related outcome measurements. - When using s-CAIS in partially edentulous cases, a higher level of accuracy can be achieved when compared to fully edentulous cases. - When using an intraoral scanner in edentulous cases, the results are dependent on the protocol that has been followed. - The accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans is software dependent. - s-CAIS (static computer-aided implant surgery) should be considered as an additional tool for comprehensive diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical procedures.

  12. •• Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(1):11–9. - Statistically significant differences were found between test groups for complete- and partial-arch impression methods in vitro (p < 0.05). - Digital impressions obtained from specific IOSs are a valid alternative to conventional impressions for partial-arch segments. - Complete-arch impressions are still challenging for IOS devices.

  13. • Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(6):895–903. - The E4D and Zfx IntraScan models did not perform as accurately as the other IOSs. - The FastScan and True Definition, which require powder coating, exhibited better trueness. - The qualitative aspects of the IOSs varied in terms of polygon shapes, sharp edge reproducibility, and surface smoothness.

  14. •• Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26(3):101–21. - The IOS systems can be reliably used for diagnostic purposes and short-span scanning. - For whole arch scanning, the IOS is susceptible for more deviation. - While the accuracy of IOS systems appears to be promising and comparable to conventional methods, they are still vulnerable to inaccuracies.

  15. • Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagão V, Street A. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22(4):307–19. - Determine the scanning strategy that obtains the most accurate results for two intraoral scanners (IOS) in complete-arch digital impressions. - Scan time. - Following the scanning strategy indicated by the manufacturer is paramoun in term of accuracy.

  16. • Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13158. - Determine the most reliable scanning strategy and scanner type, using a new protocol for assessing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scan data. - The segmental approach for scanning the region of interest first and continuous scanning with the scanner head held mostly in a horizontal position are both acceptable as full-arch scanning strategies. However, vertical rotation of intraoral scanners should be minimized.

  17. • Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(4):375–6. - Impact of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device. - CEREC Omnicam scanner with software versions 4.4.0 and 4.4.4. - Software version has a significant impact on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner. It is important that researchers also publish the software version of scanners when publishing their findings.

  18. • Erozan C, Ozan O. Evaluation of the precision of different intraoral scanner-computer aided design (CAD) software combinations in digital dentistry. Med Sci Monit. 2020;26:e918529. - Evaluate the precision of correlation between intraoral scanners and computer aided design (CAD) software programs used during scanning and designing phases of digital dentistry. - The combinations of scanners and associated CAD programs yielded more accurate results, and data loss was revealed when the scanned data converted from the proprietary format to the STL format.

  19. Prudente MS, Davi LR, Nabbout KO, Prado CJ, Pereira LM, Zancopé K, et al. Influence of scanner, powder application, and adjustments on CAD-CAM crown misfit. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(3):377–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Culp A, et al. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020;32(2):204–18. - Active Triangulation scanners are more sensitive to substrate differences than their parallel confocal counterparts. - Clinical significance: The substrates being scanned play an import role in the trueness and precision of the 3D model. The new generation of scanners is remarkably accurate across all substrates and for complete-arch scanning.

  21. • Edher F, Hannam AG, Tobias DL, Wyatt CCL. The accuracy of virtual interocclusal registration during intraoral scanning. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(6):904–12. - Different occlusal contacts are obtained from interocclusal registration scans in different segments of the dental arch. - The difference is more obvious in complete-arch scans, where a tilting effect toward the site of the interocclusal registration scan was observed. - Occlusal contacts obtained from interocclusal registration scans for quadrant scans had a higher sensitivity than did those for complete-arch scans.

  22. • Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Suzuki T, Minakuchi S. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(3):324–9. - The 3900K and 500lux condition is the most appropriate lighting condition for taking a digital impression. This condition is typical of clinical settings. - High illuminance ambient light increased the scanning time.

  23. • Revilla-Leon M, Subramanian SG, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(2):107–13. - Light conditions significantly influenced on the scanning accuracy of the IOS evaluated. - The extension of the digital scan was a scanning accuracy influencing factor. - The higher the extension of the digital scan performed, the lower the accuracy values obtained. - Ambient light scanning conditions influenced differently depending on the extension of the digital scans made.

  24. •• Park GH, Son K, Lee KB. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(5):803–10. - Current complete-arch scanning is not sufficiently accurate for fabricating fixed prostheses. - Intraoral scanners are useful for short scans, such as those for single (TRIOS2, TRIOS3, and CS3500) or short-span prostheses (CS3600).

  25. • Zimmermann M, Ender A, Mehl A. Local accuracy of actual intraoral scanning systems for single-tooth preparations in vitro. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151(2):127–35. - Local accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) systems for single-tooth preparation impressions with an in vitro setup. - IOS systems differ in terms of local accuracy. - Practical implications: Trueness and precision values for both MA (preparation margin) and SU (preparation surface) of single-unit preparations are equal or close to CO ( Conventional)impression for several IOS systems.

  26. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Treesh JC, Liacouras PC, Taft RM, Brooks DI, Raiciulescu S, Ellert DO, et al. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(3):382–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Khraishi H, Duane B. Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient. Evid Based Dent. 2017;18(1):24–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. •• Giachetti L, Sarti C, Cinelli F, Russo DS. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33(2):192–201. - Accuracy of direct digital impressions in vivo and compare it to that of conventional impressions in order to assess whether intraoral scanners could be a legitimate alternative for the manufacturing of fixed prosthodontics. - Conventional impressions performed using high-precision impression materials showed greater accuracy than digital impressions.

  30. Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(4):343–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. • Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardó A, Camps I. Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0202916. - Identify and compare the scanning strategy with the greatest accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of four intraoral scanners in the impression of a complete dental arch. - The digital impression systems used in the experiment provided sufficient flexibility for the acquisition of 3D images without this affecting the accuracy of the scanner.

  32. Rehmann P, Sichwardt V, Wöstmann B. Intraoral scanning systems: need for maintenance. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30(1):27–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Iwaki Y, Wakabayashi N, Igarashi Y. Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations. Oper Dent. 2013;38(3):309–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Solaberrieta E, Arias A, Brizuela A, Garikano X, Pradies G. Determining the requirements, section quantity, and dimension of the virtual occlusal record. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(1):52–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Güth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(5):1445–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Nawi N, Mohamed AM, Marizan Nor M, Ashar NA. Correlation and agreement of a digital and conventional method to measure arch parameters. J Orofac Orthop. 2018;79(1):19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mühlemann S, Greter EA, Park JM, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: a within-subject comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(9):931–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. •• Schmidt A, Klussmann L, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions in patients: an update. J Clin Med. 2020;9(3). - Current IOS equipped with the latest software versions demonstrated less deviation for short-span distances compared with the conventional impression technique. - For long-span distances, the conventional impression technique provided the lowest deviation. - Currently available IOS systems demonstrated improvement regarding transfer accuracy of full-arch scans in patients.

  39. •• Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(1):35–41. - Digital impression accuracy is at the same level as conventional impression methods in fabrication of crowns and short fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). - For fabrication of implant-supported crowns and FDPs, digital impression accuracy is clinically acceptable. - In full-arch impressions, conventional impression methods resulted in better accuracy compared to digital impressions. - Digital impression techniques are faster and can shorten the operation time. - The conventional impression technique is still recommended for full-arch impressions.

  40. • Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(3):313–20. - Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. - Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the complete arch cast. - Digital impression achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials.

  41. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015;46(1):9–17.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aswani K, Wankhade S, Khalikar A, Deogade S. Accuracy of an intraoral digital impression: a review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020;20(1):27–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Camardella LT, Breuning H, de Vasconcellos Vilella O. Accuracy and reproducibility of measurements on plaster models and digital models created using an intraoral scanner. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(3):211–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. • Berrendero S, Salido MP, Ferreiroa A, Valverde A, Pradies G. Comparative study of all-ceramic crowns obtained from conventional and digital impressions: clinical findings. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(4):1745–51. - The digital crowns had better clinical conditions according to both evaluators. - The digital crowns were statistically superior for the interproximal contact points and marginal fit. - Occlusal contacts and primary retention, no difference between the two groups was observed. - Clinical significance: Digital intraoral impressions can be used for manufacturing ceramic crowns, with the same or better clinical results as conventional impressions.

  45. Takeuchi Y, Koizumi H, Furuchi M, Sato Y, Ohkubo C, Matsumura H. Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Sci. 2018;60(1):1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Arcuri L, Lorenzi C, Bianchi N, Marchetti E, Barlattani A. Fit evaluation of cad/cam fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization in vivo: a systematic review. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019;33(3 Suppl. 1):103–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. •• Hasanzade M, Shirani M, Afrashtehfar KI, Naseri P, Alikhasi M. In vivo and in vitro comparison of internal and marginal fit of digital and conventional impressions for full-coverage fixed restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2019;19(3):236–54. - Marginal or internal gap of full-coverage restorations. - Differences in marginal adaptation between the digital and conventional groups are not significant for in vivo studies. - In vitro studies, the digital impression resulted in better marginal adaptation.

  48. Arezoobakhsh A, Shayegh SS, Jamali Ghomi A, Hakimaneh SMR. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):105–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. • Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Thor A. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):27. - Analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). - There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. - High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and nonuniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. - Topography variations were low. - Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. - It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply.

  50. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018;69:110–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. •• Mühlemann S, Kraus RD, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 18):184–95. - The implementation of the studied digital technologies increased time efficiency for the laboratory fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions. - For posterior SIC (single implant crowns), the model-free fabrication, the use of prefabricated abutments, and the monolithic design was most time efficient and most effective.

  52. Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(Suppl 1):101–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ferrini F, Sannino G, Chiola C, Capparé P, Gastaldi G, Gherlone EF. Influence of intra-oral scanner (I.O.S.) on the marginal accuracy of cad/cam single crowns. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(4).

  54. Rutkunas V, Larsson C. Vult von Steyern P, Mangano F, Gedrimiene A. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(2):237–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sawase T, Kuroshima S. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):57–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(4):792–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(6):755–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. •• Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Etxaniz O, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(3):447–54. - Complete-arch digital scans of edentulous jaws are more accurate when an AGD (auxiliary geometric device) is used to resolve the lack of anatomic landmarks.

  59. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5).

  60. •• Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(2):366–80. - Reducing interimplant distance may decrease global linear distortions (dR) for intraoral scanner systems, but had no effect on Impregum and the dental laboratory scanner systems. - Impregum consistently exhibited the best or second-best accuracy at all implant locations, while True Definition exhibited the poorest accuracy for all linear distortions in both Models A and B. - Impression systems could not be consistently ranked for absolute angular distortions.

  61. Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Özcan M, Pradíes G. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(8):650–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:3761750.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):277–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. •• Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):96–104. - The accuracy (trueness and precision) of complete-arch digital implant scans using ISBs was affected by both the scan body and scan technique when using an intraoral scanning system. - The scan techniques with different surface modifications were not found to improve the scan accuracy. - The use of different ISBs led to significant differences in the scan time.

  65. • Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, et al. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(4):396–403. Not all scanners are suitable for digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and the weight of the output files is independent from the accuracy of the IOSs

  66. Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24(1):e89–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(6):466–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Yun D, Choi DS, Jang I, Cha BK. Clinical application of an intraoral scanner for serial evaluation of orthodontic tooth movement: a preliminary study. Korean J Orthod. 2018;48(4):262–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):3–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Lecocq G. Digital impression-taking: fundamentals and benefits in orthodontics. Int Orthod. 2016;14(2):184–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Buccofacial Prostheses, Faculty of Dentistry, University Complutense of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal, S/N, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Robles-Medina, Marta Romeo-Rubio, Maria Paz Salido & Guillermo Pradíes

Authors
  1. Mercedes Robles-Medina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Romeo-Rubio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Paz Salido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guillermo Pradíes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillermo Pradíes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Dental Restorative Materials

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Robles-Medina, M., Romeo-Rubio, M., Salido, M.P. et al. Digital Intraoral Impression Methods: an Update on Accuracy. Curr Oral Health Rep 7, 361–375 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-020-00285-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-020-00285-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation