BackgroundHow the accuracy of complete‐arch implant scans is affected when different intraoral scanners (IOSs) are used and the effect of scan body position on the accuracy are not well‐known.PurposeTo compare the scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of a recently introduced IOS (Virtuo Vivo) to a commonly used IOS (TRIOS 3) and the scans of a laboratory scanner (LBS; Cares 7 SERIES) in a completely edentulous maxilla with four implants. It was also aimed to evaluate the effect of scan body position on the accuracy.Materials and MethodsMulti‐unit scan bodies were tightened on a poly(methyl methacrylate) edentulous maxillary model with four implants. A master reference model (MRM) stereolithography (STL) file was generated by scanning the model with a high‐precision scanner. The model was scanned with three different scanners (n = 10); two different IOSs and a LBS. STL files were superimposed over the MRM.ResultsFor trueness, scan body position (P = .004) and scanner type (P < .001) had a significant effect on distance deviation and a significant interaction was found (P = .001). For angular deviation, only scanner type had a significant effect (P = .028). For precision, significant difference was found for distance (P = .011) and angular deviations (P = .020) between different scanner types.ConclusionsOne scanner type was not superior to others when both trueness and precision were considered. Position of the scan body affected the distance deviation (trueness).

Objectives New generation intraoral scanners are promoted to be suitable for digital scans of long-span edentulous spaces and completely edentulous arches; however, the evidence is lacking. The current study evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) in partially and completely edentulous arch models and analyzed the influence of operator experience on accuracy. Materials and methods Four different resin models (completely and partially edentulous maxilla and mandible) were scanned, using a new generation IOS device (n = 20 each). Ten scans of each model were performed by an IOS-experienced and an inexperienced operator. An industrial high-precision scanner was employed to obtain reference scans. IOS files of each modeloperator combination, their respective reference scan files (n = 10 each; total = 80), as well as the IOS files from each model generated by the same operator, were superimposed (n = 45; total = 360) to calculate trueness and precision. An ANOVA for mixed models and post hoc t tests for mixed models were used to assess group-wise differences (α = 0.05). Results The median overall trueness and precision were 24.2 μm (IQR 20.7-27.4 μm) and 18.3 μm (IQR 14.4-22.1 μm), respectively. The scans of the inexperienced operator had significantly higher trueness in the edentulous mandibular model (p = 0.0001) and higher precision in the edentulous maxillary model (p = 0.0004). Conclusion The accuracy of IOS for partially and completely edentulous arches in in vitro settings was high. Experience with IOS had small influence on the accuracy of the scans. Clinical relevance IOS with the tested new generation intraoral scanner may be suitable for the fabrication of removable dentures regardless of clinician's experience in IOS.

No abstract

No abstract