Objectives The present study aimed to analyze the behaviors of three intraoral scanners (IOSs): evaluating the interdistance and axial inclination discrepancies in full-arch scans, predictable errors were searched. Materials and methods Six edentulous sample models with variable numbers of dental implants were used; reference data were obtained with a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM). Each IOS (i.e., Primescan, CS3600, and Trios3) performed 10 scans per model (180 total scans). The origin of each scan body was used as a reference point to measure interdistance lengths and axial inclinations. Precision and trueness of interdistance measurements and axial inclinations were evaluated to address error predictability. Bland–Altman analysis, followed by linear regression analysis and Friedman’s test (plus Dunn’s post hoc correction), was performed to evaluate the precision and trueness. Results Regarding interdistance, Primescan showed the best precision (mean ± SD: 0.047 ± 0.020 mm), while Trios3 underestimated the reference value more than the others (p < 0.001) and had the worst performance (mean ± SD: −0.079 ± 0.048 mm). Concerning the inclination angle, Primescan and Trios3 tended to overestimate angle values, while CS3600 underestimated them. Primescan had fewer inclination angle outliers, but it tended to add 0.4–0.6° to the measurements. Conclusions IOSs showed predictable errors: they tended to overestimate or underestimate linear measurements and axial inclinations of scan bodies, one added 0.4–0.6° to the angle inclination values. In particular, they showed heteroscedasticity, a behavior probably related to the software or the device itself. Clinical significance IOSs showed predictable errors that could affect clinical success. When performing a scan or choosing a scanner, clinicians should clearly know their behaviors.

The success of implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (ISFCDPs) depends on multiple factors: some are related to the fixtures, such as fixture material, surface characteristics, positioning, and type of connection to prosthetic components; others are related to the prostheses, such as design and materials used. Zirconia is a material widely used in fixed prosthodontics, whether on natural teeth or on implants, with excellent results over time. Regarding the use of zirconia for ISFCDPs, the 2018 ITI Consensus Report stated that “implant-supported monolithic zirconia prostheses may be a future option with more supporting evidence”. Since CAD/CAM technology and zirconia are being continuously innovated to achieve better results and performances over time, a narrative review of the literature seems necessary to focus research efforts towards effective and durable solutions for implant-supported, full-arch rehabilitations. The objective of the present narrative review was to search the literature for studies regarding the clinical performance of zirconia-based ISFCDPs. According to the results of this review, the use of zirconia for ISFCDPs showed good clinical outcomes, with high survival rates ranging from 88% to 100% and prosthetic complications that were restorable by the clinicians in most cases.

Objectives The present study aimed to analyze the behaviors of three intraoral scanners (IOSs): evaluating the interdistance and axial inclination discrepancies in full-arch scans, predictable errors were searched. Materials and Methods Six edentulous sample models with variable numbers of dental implants were used; reference data were obtained with a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM). Each IOS performed 10 scans per model (180 total scans). The origin of each scan body was used as a reference point to measure interdistance lengths and axial inclinations. Precision and trueness of interdistance measurements and axial inclinations were evaluated to address error predictability. Bland–Altman analysis, followed by linear regression analysis and Friedman’s test (plus Dunn’s post hoc correction), was performed to evaluate the precision and trueness. Results Regarding interdistance, Primescan showed the best precision (mean±SD: 0.047±0.020mm), while Trios3 underestimated the reference value more than the others (p < 0.001) and had the worst performance (mean±SD: −0.079±0.048mm). Concerning the inclination angle, Primescan and Trios3 tended to overestimate angle values, while CS3600 underestimated them. Primescan had fewer inclination angle outliers, but it sporadically added 0.2–0.4° to the measurements. Conclusions IOSs showed predictable errors: they tended to overestimate or underestimate linear measurements and axial inclinations of scan bodies, one added occasionally 0.2-0.4° to the angle inclination values. In particular, they showed heteroscedasticity, a behavior probably related to the software or the device itself. Clinical Significance The presence of constant errors and unique heteroscedastic behavior were demonstrated for the first time.

An important issue with digital impression techniques is the difficulty in replicating the subgingival zone, particularly when abutments are prepared with a vertical finish line. We propose a novel procedure, the reverse subgingival scan (RSS), to depict the subgingival area via digital impression without a retraction cord or the distortion of the sulcus. The software workflow, beginning with a digital dental impression, was performed using Exocad® (Align Technology) and Meshmixer® (Autodesk). The approach is based on the direct alignment of the surface of abutments, which is used as a reference point. The efficacy of the RSS approach was confirmed via fit tests, radiographic control assessments, and evaluations of the rate of tissue compression of the final prosthetic restoration, so long as the provisional had a perfect fit. RSS yields information on the transversal dimension and depth of the gingival sulcus. The procedure depends on the quality and characteristics of the provisional restoration, and is suitable only for cases in which the finish line of the final crown is at the same level or more coronal than that of the provisional.