Table 2 IOS accuracy compared to conventional techniques
From: The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review
References | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression type (stone cast accuracy) | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lee et al. [29] | Single posterior maxillary implant | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | iTero | PVS (aquasil) mono-closed tray | LAVA scan ST | Milled models from IOS scan exhibited SS more vertical displacement of implant analogue position compared to master model in coronal direction |
Koch et al. [30] | Single posterior maxillary implant | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | iTero | N/A | LAVA Scan ST (master model) | Variations in the milled models resulting from software and scanner error exhibited statistical significance Software, scanner, and milling error were shown to propagate through the digital workflow to the milled model |
Mühlemann et al. [22] | Single posterior implants | 3D surface | In vivo (n = 5) | iTero (57 μm) Trios (88 μm) Lava COS (176 μm) | Polyether mono closed metal tray (32 μm) | D103i (imetric 3D SA) | The conventional gypsum implant model had the highest accuracy of implant position compared to 3D printed and milled models from IOS scans |
Mangano et al. [23] | Single anterior maxillary implant | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (Tr = 22 μm/Pr = 15 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 15 μm/Pr = 11 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 28 μm/Pr = 30 μm) DWIO (Tr = 27 μm/Pr = 27 μm Emerald (Tr = 43 μm/Pr = 32 μm) | N/A | Freedom DOF | Trios3 and CS3600 were SS more accurate compared to other IOS Accuracy of IOS in complete-arch implants is NOT corelated to IOS resolution |