Study on Accuracy of Scanned Impressions of Edentulous Mandibular Implants and Conventional Impressions using Digital Wings Scanning Body

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2025.10.009

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the effect of Digital Wings scanning body on the accuracy of oral scanning impression technique for edentulous maxillary implants, analyze its performance in several intraoral scanning groups, and compare its accuracy with that of the traditional impression technique. Methods: Root mean square (RMS) values for the trueness and precision of implant positions were obtained for conventional impression-taking group, intraoral scanning group, and standard model group using the best-fit method and the absolute linear deviation method. Results: RMS means of trueness for the conventional group, the normal scanner group, the new CAD scanner group, and the Digital Wings scanner group were 39.3 (29.9-50.5) μm, 135.1 (50.8-260.5) μm, 84.3 (53.2-212.5) μm, and 81.3 (33.8-133.2) μm, respectively. No significant difference was observed between the Digital Wings scanner group and the conventional mode-taking group (P>0.05). The RMS means of precision were 35.3 (12.4-98.5) μm, 155.4 (33.2-329.9) μm, 116.4 (4.4-349.8) μm, and 54.0 (13.4-124.6) μm, respectively. Additionally, no significant difference was found between the Digital Wings scanner group, the new CAD scanner group, and the traditional mode-taking group (P>0.05). Conclusion: There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy between the Digital Wings scanner group and the conventional group. Improvements in scan body design, such as changes in the shape of the scan body, have led to a gradual increase in scanning accuracy. However, more in vitro and clinical studies on edentulous implant scan body are needed.

Key words: precision, trueness, Digital Wings, scan body, edentulous

HUANG Jing, LU Qinyi, XU Peng, LIANG Yuan. Study on Accuracy of Scanned Impressions of Edentulous Mandibular Implants and Conventional Impressions using Digital Wings Scanning Body[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2025, 41(10): 890-895.

References

[1] Labib AM, El-Beialy AR, Attia KH. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital models obtained using intraoral and extraoral scanners versus gold standard plaster model (diagnostic accuracy study) [J].Open Journal of Medical Imaging, 2020, 10(3):151-163.
[2] Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagão V, et al. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study [J]. Int J Comput Dent, 2019, 22(4): 307-319.
[3] Guo DN, Liu YS, Pan SX, et al. Clinical efficiency and patient preference of immediate digital impression after implant placement for single implant-supported crown [J]. Chin J Dent Res, 2019, 22(1): 21-28.
[4] Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(11): 1360-1367.
[5] Nagata K, Fuchigami K, Okuhama Y, et al. Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2021, 21(1): 464.
[6] GóMez-Polo M, Ballesteros J, Perales-Padilla P, et al. Guided implant scanning: A procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 124(2): 135-139.
[7] Stimmelmayr M, GüTh JF, Erdelt K, et al. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2012, 16(3): 851-856.
[8] García-Gil I, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Jiménez-García J, et al. Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review [J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2020, 12(8): e784-e793.
[9] Ke YF, Zhang YP, Chen JK, et al. Accuracy analysis of full-arch implant digital impressions when using a geometric feature [J]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2022, 57(2): 162-167.
[10] Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, et al. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31(7): 625-633.
[11] Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, et al. The cumulative effect of error in the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks: An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2022, 33(9): 886-899.
[12] Att W, Witkowski S. Digital Workflow in Reconstructive Dentistry [M]. Berlin: Quintessenz Verlags-GmbH, 2019.
[13] Mizumoto RM, Alp G, Özcan M, et al. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2019, 21(5): 987-994.
[14] Miyoshi K, Tanaka S, Yokoyama S, et al. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31(1): 74-83.
[15] Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, et al. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial [J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2020, 64(2): 128-136.
[16] Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, et al. 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]. J Prosthodont, 2020, 29(4): 309-314.
[17] Oh HS, Lim YJ, Kim B, et al. Effect of scanning-aid agents on the scanning accuracy in specially designed metallic models: A laboratory study [J]. PLoS One, 2022, 17(5): e0267742.
[18] Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, et al. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type [J]. Int J Dent, 2018, 2018: 3761750.
[19] Carneiro Pereira AL, Carvalho Porto de Freitas RF, de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos M, et al. Trueness of a device for intraoral scanning to capture the angle and distance between implants in edentulous mandibular arches [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2022, 128(6): 1310-1317.
[20] Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019, 30(12): 1250-1258.
[21] Farhan FA, Sahib AJ, Fatalla AA. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral digital impression system and conventional impression techniques for multiple implants in the full-arch edentulous mandible [J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2021, 13(5): e487-e492.
[22] Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, et al. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(4): 853-862.
[23] Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Lauer AW, et al. Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems [J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2018, 30(2): 113-118.
[24] Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, et al. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 123(1): 85-95.
[25] Carneiro Pereira AL, Souza Curinga MR, Melo Segundo HV, et al. Factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning of total edentulous arches rehabilitated with multiple implants: A systematic review [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2023, 129(6): 855-862.