Table 4 IOS accuracy compared to conventional techniques

Gimenez-Gonzalez et al. [59]

Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants

Distance and angulation

In vitro (n = 1)

Lava COS

N/A

CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex

Operator experience ss influenced accuracy. Angulation and depth of placement did no ss influence accuracy

Gimenez et al. [48]

Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants

Distance and angulation

In vitro (n = 1)

3D Progress

ZFX Intrascan

N/A

CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex

Experience of the operator, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in accuracy with either scanner

ZFX presented higher FA accuracy

Papaspyridakos et al. [33]

Full arch edentulous mandible with 5 implants

3D Surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 2

Polyether mono Implant level splinted/unsplinted

Polyether mono Abutment level splinted/unsplinted

Iscan iD103 Imetric

IOS resulted in accuracy similar to splinted conventional implant impressions. Both were SS more accurate to non-splinted conventional imps. Implant angulations up to 10–15 degrees did not affect IOS accuracy

Vandeweghe et al. [49]

Full arch edentulous mandible with 6 implants

3D Surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 2 (28 μm)

Lava COS (112 μm)

True Def (35 μm)

Omnicam (61 μm)

N/A

104i Imetric

Newer generation IOS performed very well regarding full arch accuracy

Imburgia et al. [46]

Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants

3D surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 3 (Tr = 67 μm/Pr = 31 μm)

CS3600 (Tr = 60 μm/Pr = 65 μm)

Omnicam (Tr = 66 μm/Pr = 57 μm)

TrueDef (Tr = 106 μm/Pr = 75 μm

N/A

ScanRider

CS3600 had SS higher accuracy compared to other IOS. Accuracy in the partial arch is higher for all IOS compared to the Full arch situation

Amin et al. [34]

Edentulous mandible with 5 implants

3D Surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Omnicam (46 μm)

True Def (19 μm)

Polyether mono splinted (custom open tray) (168 μm)

Activity 880 (Smart Optics)

Digital IOS FA impressions were ss more accurate compared to conventional FA impressions

True Def IOS was ss more accurate than Omnicam IOS

Gimenez et al. [62]

Edentulous maxilla with 6 implants

Distance and angulation

In vitro (n = 1)

True Def (70 μm)

N/A

CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex

The size of visible scanbody affects accuracy. Angulation of scanbodies does not influence accuracy. Scan distance (full arch) affects accuracy

Ciocca et al. [60]

Edentulous titanium mandible with 6 implants

Distance

In vitro (n = 1)

True Def (41-82 μm)

N/A

OCMM SmartScope Flash CNC 300

Operator experience did not influence mean IOS FA accuracy

Deviations increased with increase in the length of scan

Alikhasi et al. [39]

2 Fully edentulous maxillae with 4 implants each (trilobed and external hexagon connection)

Distance and angulation

In vitro (n = 2)

Trios 3

PVS dual mix with custom trays (open and closed tray)

CMM Mistral and CMM Atos Core 80

IOS was ss more accurate than PVS open and closed tray. PVS open is ss more accurate than PVS closed. Type of implant connection does not influence IOS accuracy. Implant angulation does not influence IOS accuracy

Mutwalli et al. [50]

Edentulous maxillary cast with 5 implants

Distance

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 3 mono (63 μm)

Trios 3 (114 μm)

iTero (41 μm)

Atos Core (19 μm)

N/A

Carl Zeiss CMM

Low precision of all IOS for full arch scanning

iTero was statistically the most accurate

TRIOS official strategy was not used

Gintaute et al. [63]

Edentulous mandibular models with 4 and 6 implants with different angulations

Distance

In vitro (n = 4)

TrueDef

PVS dual mix

PE single step both with custom open tray

CMM Createch Medical

The accuracy of the IOS and conventional impression-making approaches for straight and tilted dental implants was comparable, and might be clinically considered for full-arch, multiple-implant restorations

Tan et al. [37]

Maxillary full arch models with 6 and 8 implants

Distance

In vitro (n = 2)

Trios

True Def

Ceramill Map400

InEos X5

D900

Polyether mono splinted (open tray)

CMM (Renishaw)

True Def was ss less accurate

Conventional imps had better accuracy compared to IOS

Decreasing implant distance may help reduce IOS distortion

Kim et al. [36]

Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants

Distance

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 3

PVS Aquasil mono, custom tray-splinted

Contura CMM

Conventional open-splinted tray impression produced more accurate impressions compared to IOS

Mangano et al. [23]

Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants

3D Surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 3 (Tr = 46 μm/Pr = 35 μm)

CS3600 (Tr = 44 μm/Pr = 35 μm)

Omnicam (Tr = 70 μm/Pr = 89 μm)

DWIO (Tr = 92 μm/Pr = 111 μm

Emerald (Tr = 66 μm/Pr = 61 μm)

N/A

Freedom DOF

Trios3 and CS3600 were SS more accurate in Full arch compared to other IOS

Accuracy of IOS in implants FA is NOT corelated to IOS resolution

Mizumoto et al. [75]

Full edentulous polyurethane maxillary cast with 4 implants

Distance and angulation

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios

N/A

COMET L3D

Accuracy of 4- implants FA is not affected by inclusion of the palate in the scan or not

Rech-Ortega et al. [40]

Model with 6 implants

Distance

In vitro (n = 1)

True Definition (21-118 μm) depending on the interimplant distance

Polyether (open tray) non-splinted

20-68 μm depending on the interimplant distance

CMM Heningshaw

For adjacent implants (up to 4) both techniques are satisfactory

The longer the distance between implants, the lower the accuracy of both techniques

Di Fiore et al. [51]

Full edentulous mandibular PMMA cast with 6 scanbodies

Distance and 3D Surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 3 (32 μm)

True Def (31 μm)

Omnicam (71 μm)

3DProgress (344 μm)

CS3500 (107 μm)

CS3600 (61 μm)

Emerald (101 μm)

DWIO (148 μm)

N/A

SmartScope CMM

Some IOS performed better than others in full arch scans

The size of the output file is independent of the accuracy of the IOS

Arcuri et al. [61]

Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants

Distance and angulation

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 3

N/A

ATOS Compact

Scan 5

Implant scanbody material significantly influenced IOS FA digital impression with peek showing the best results on both linear and angular measurements, followed by titanium, with peek-titanium showing the worst results

Implant angulation significantly affected the linear deviations while implant position the angular deviation. No significant operator effect on the IOS accuracy was detected

Bilmenoglou et al. [53]

Edentulous mandible with 6 implants

3D Surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios color pod (31 μm)

Trios color cart (40 μm)

Trios mono cart (43 μm)

3Dprogress(102 μm)

Omnicam (32 μm)

Bluecam (45 μm)

Apollo DI (37 μm)

E4D (82 μm)

Planscan (345 μm)

Lythos (113 μm)

N/A

ATOS CORE 80

TRIOS devices, Omnicam, Apollo DI, and Bluecam are suitable for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses

Sami et al. [52]

Edentulous mandibular model with 6 implants

3D surface

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios

TrueDef

Omnicam

Emerald

N/A

Edge ScanArm (Faro)

No statistical or clinical differences were found among the scanners tested. The 3D map was the best method for observing the data

Miyoshi et al. [35]

Maxillary edentulous model with 6 implants

Distance

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios 2 (Pr = 29 μm)

TrueDef (Pr = 16 μm)

Omnicam (Pr = 19 μm)

CS3600 (Pr = 21 μm)

PVS dual mix (Imprint 4) with custom open tray-splinted-abutment

(Pr = 21 μm)

D810 (Pr = 3,9 μm)

Range of scanning influenced impression accuracy. Digital impressions for implants should be limited to 3-unit structures on 2 impl

Mizumoto et al. [66]

Edentulous maxilla with 4 implants scanned with 5 different sets of scan bodies and 4 different strategies

Distance

In vitro (n = 1)

Trios

N/A

COMET L3D

Scanbody design influences accuracy (the smoother the better). Also, soft tissue surface modifications (pressure paste) did not produce more accurate scans

Huang et al. [38]

Edentulous mandibular cast with 4 implants and 3 different scanbody designs

3D Surface

In vitro

(n = 1)

Trios 3

(Tr = 28-38 μm/(Pr = 27-48 μm)

depending on the scanbody used.)

PVS putty and light (Silagum) splinted (open tray)

(Tr = 25 μm/Pr = 19 μm)

D2000

Conventional splinted open tray impressions were ss more accurate than IOS digital impressions. Experimental design with interconnected scanbodies SS improved accuracy

Chochlidakis et al. [58]

Full arch maxillary edentulous patients with multiple implants (4–6)

3D Surface

In vivo (n = 16)

True Def

(RMS 162 μm)

4 implants (139 μm)

5 implants (146 μm)

6 implants (185 μm)

Heavy and light PVS (Imprint)-open tray technique

7series (Dental Wings)

Mean IOS deviation was 162 μm which is marginally acceptable for clinical accuracy

Increasing the implant number tended to increase the global deviation in the IOS impressions but with no SS