CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771031
Original Article

Influence of Implant Adjacent Teeth on the Accuracy of Digital Impression

1   Department of Prosthodontics, Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
› Author Affiliations


Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth patterns on the accuracy of digital scans of parallel and divergent implants for three-unit prostheses.

Materials and Methods A maxillary typodont model with implants in the locations of the first premolars and first molars was used to develop three clinical scenarios for three-unit prostheses: (S1) Partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars and first molars only; (S2) partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars, second premolars and first molars; and (S3) partially edentulous arch with missing canines, first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars. On one side, the implants were parallel, and for the other side, the implants had a 15-degree buccolingual angle. With the aid of scan bodies, 10 digital impressions were taken for each scenario and for each side. To evaluate the accuracy, a reverse engineering software was used to measure trueness, precision, and interimplant distance.

Results The best trueness for parallel implants was observed for S2 (30.0 µm), followed by S3 (67.3 µm) and S1 (74.8 µm) (p < 0.001). Likewise, S2 had the best precision for parallel implants (31.3 µm) followed by S3 (38.0 µm) and S1 (70.3 µm) (p < 0.001). For the divergent implants, S2 exhibited the best trueness (23.1 µm), followed by S3 (48.2 µm) and S1 (59.4 µm) (p = 0.007). Similarly, the S2 had the best precision (12.3 µm) followed by S3 (62.1 µm) and S1 (66.9 µm) (p < 0.001). The S2 had the least interimplant distance deviation followed by S1 and S3. The difference was significant for parallel implants (p = 0.03), but insignificant for divergent implants (p = 0.15).

Conclusion Regardless of the presenting scenario, digital implant impressions for three-unit prostheses appear to be clinically accurate. A clear interimplant area between scan bodies enhanced the accuracy of digital impressions. This observation can be attributed to more accessible axial surface scanning of the scan body.

Publication History

Article published online:
29 August 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

  • References

  • 1 Abduo J, Palamara JEA. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation. Int J Implant Dent 2021; 7 (01) 75
  • 2 Alpkılıç DS, Değer SI. In vitro comparison of the accuracy of conventional impression and four intraoral scanners in four different implant impression scenarios. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022; 37 (01) 39-48
  • 3 Bi C, Wang X, Tian F, Qu Z, Zhao J. Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: two and three dimensional evaluations. J Adv Prosthodont 2022; 14 (04) 236-249
  • 4 Chia VA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, Teo JW, Wong KM, Tan KB. In vitro three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: the effect of implant angulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017; 32 (02) 313-321
  • 5 Gómez-Polo M, Sallorenzo A, Ortega R. et al. Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans. J Prosthet Dent 2022 ;S0022-3913(21)00651-X. Doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.018
  • 6 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 (08) 650-655
  • 7 Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (04) 465-472
  • 8 Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30 (01) 102-109
  • 9 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
  • 10 Abduo J, Judge RB. Implications of implant framework misfit: a systematic review of biomechanical sequelae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (03) 608-621
  • 11 Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2020; 29 (04) 309-314
  • 12 Revell G, Simon B, Mennito A. et al. Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 128 (04) 632-638
  • 13 Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (06) 648-653
  • 14 Zhang YJ, Qiao SC, Qian SJ, Zhang CN, Shi JY, Lai HC. Influence of different factors on the accuracy of digital impressions of multiple implants: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021; 36 (03) 442-449
  • 15 Pesce P, Bagnasco F, Pancini N. et al. Trueness of intraoral scanners in implant-supported rehabilitations: an in vitro analysis on the effect of operators' experience and implant number. J Clin Med 2021; 10 (24) 5917
  • 16 Schmidt A, Billig JW, Schlenz MA, Wöstmann B. The influence of using different types of scan bodies on the transfer accuracy of implant position: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2021; 34 (02) 254-260
  • 17 Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: a comparative study of digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 128 (05) 1017-1023
  • 18 Sequeira V, Harper MT, Lilly CL, Bryington MS. Accuracy of digital impressions at varying implant depths: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2023; 32 (01) 54-61
  • 19 Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122 (06) 543-549
  • 20 Kim JH, Son SA, Lee H, Kim RJ, Park JK. In vitro analysis of intraoral digital impression of inlay preparation according to tooth location and cavity type. J Prosthodont Res 2021; 65 (03) 400-406
  • 21 Kim JH, Son SA, Lee H, Yoo YJ, Hong SJ, Park JK. Influence of adjacent teeth on the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems for class II inlay preparation. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022; 34 (05) 826-832
  • 22 Bernauer SA, Müller J, Zitzmann NU, Joda T. Influence of preparation design, marginal gingiva location, and tooth morphology on the accuracy of digital impressions for full-crown restorations: an in vitro investigation. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (12) 3984
  • 23 Keeling A, Wu J, Ferrari M. Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan. J Dent 2017; 59: 33-40
  • 24 Goujat A, Abouelleil H, Colon P. et al. Marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay/onlay restorations: a systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (04) 590-597.e3
  • 25 Kanjanasavitree P, Thammajaruk P, Guazzato M. Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans. J Dent 2022; 125: 104266
  • 26 Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WY, Zhao K, Pow EH. Improving intraoral implant scanning with a novel auxiliary device: an in-vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021; 32 (12) 1466-1473
  • 27 Roig E, Roig M, Garza LC, Costa S, Maia P, Espona J. Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: a pilot clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 128 (03) 404-414
  • 28 Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C. Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2021; 13 (02) 107-116
  • 29 Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. 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
  • 30 Pozzi A, Arcuri L, Lio F, Papa A, Nardi A, Londono J. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study. J Dent 2022; 119: 104072
  • 31 Lawand G, Ismail Y, Revilla-León M, Tohme H. Effect of implant scan body geometric modifications on the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022 ;S0022-3913(22)00378-X. Doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.004
  • 32 García-Martínez I, Zarauz C, Morejón B, Ferreiroa A, Pradíes G. Influence of customized over-scan body rings on the intraoral scanning effectiveness of a multiple implant edentulous mandibular model. J Dent 2022; 122: 104095 DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104095.
  • 33 Carneiro Pereira AL, Carvalho Porto de Freitas RF, de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos M, Soares Paiva Tôrres AC, Bezerra de Medeiros AK, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. Trueness of a device for intraoral scanning to capture the angle and distance between implants in edentulous mandibular arches. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 128 (06) 1310-1317