Effect of coded healing abutment height and position on the trueness of digital intraoral implant scans

Effect of scan pattern on the scan accuracy of a combined healing abutment scan body system

“…The accuracy of digital scans performed with the IOS used in the present study has been broadly investigated, 2,4,9,10,14,16,18,19,21,22 and the distance deviations when a single implant was digitized have been reported to range from 13.6 to 319 mm. 10,11,18,21,26,30 The distance deviations found in the present study were within this range.…”

“…This combined HA-SB (CHA-SB) system is secured by the friction between the vertical groove in the HA and the indentation present on the SB, which prevents rotation of the SB in the HA. 6,7 Considering that the impression stage is critical for implant-supported prostheses, 6,14 an accurate IOS scan is essential. 15 Trueness and precision define accuracy according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 5725-1.…”

The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study

“…Coded healing abutments are a type of ISB and were first introduced to be used with conventional impressions [23,24]. Because the healing abutment also serves as an impression post/scanbody, it enables the reduction of the number of appointments and the times the healing abutment needs to be removed [21], which minimizes the irritation of peri-implant soft tissues [25].…”

In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations

“…Regardless of the method chosen, an implant impression must be accurate to prevent ill-fitting prosthetic structures, which may lead to biological or mechanical complications [18][19][20]. Trueness and precision are the components that establish accuracy [21].…”