Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study

Both conventional and digital impressions aim to record the spatial position of implants in the dental arches. However, there is still a lack of data to justify the use of intraoral scanning over conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. The objective of the in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of conventional and digital impressions obtained with four intra-oral scanners: Trios 4 from 3Shape, Primescan from Dentsply Sirona, CS3600 from Carestream and i500 from Medit. This study focused on the impression of an edentulous maxilla in which five implants were placed for implant-supported complete prosthesis. The digital models were superimposed on a digital reference model using dimensional control and metrology software. Angular and distance deviations from the digital reference model were calculated to assess trueness. Dispersion of the values around their mean for each impression was also calculated for precision. The mean distance deviation in absolute value and the direction of the distance deviation were smaller for conventional impressions (-value < 0.001). The I-500 had the best results regarding angular measurements, followed by Trios 4 and CS3600 ( < 0.001). The conventional and I-500 digital impressions showed the lowest dispersion of values around the mean (-value < 0.001). Within the limitations of our study, our results revealed that the conventional impression was more accurate than the digital impression, but further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.