Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Response of 3D Textiles Imbibed with Shear-Thinning Polyvinyl Alcohol Solutions
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Visual Magnification on MB2 Canal Detection in a Laboratory-Based Study Using Standardized 3D-Printed Maxillary Molars
Previous Article in Special Issue
Augmented Reality-Assisted Micro-Invasive Apicectomy with Markerless Visual–Inertial Odometry: An In Vivo Pilot Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/app16010495
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Evaluation of Digital Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Posterior Implant and Tooth Scans

by
Isil Kecik Buyukhatipoglu
,
Melek Ozdemir
and
Fatih Sari
*
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep 27310, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2026, 16(1), 495; https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010495
Submission received: 14 November 2025 / Revised: 26 December 2025 / Accepted: 27 December 2025 / Published: 4 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Dental Imaging Technology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Aim: This study evaluates the digital accuracy of posterior implant scans and contralateral molar tooth scans obtained with three different intraoral scanners. Materials and Methods: Using a transfer analog, a Frasaco maxillary model was prepared with a Megagen scan body positioned in the left maxillary molar region. An experienced operator (n = 10) performed all scans with an industrial optical reference scanner and intraoral scanners (Medit i700, TRIOS 3, and TRIOS 5). Scan accuracy was assessed using Geomagic Control X software based on 3D trueness and precision accuracy analysis. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests were applied to identify statistically significant differences in trueness and precision (α = 0.05). Results: In the implant region, TRIOS 5 demonstrated significantly different 3D trueness results and was more successful than TRIOS 3. Medit i700 yielded results comparable to those of TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 5 (p = 0.011). TRIOS 5 exhibited less successful 3D trueness results than the other scanners in the molar region (p = 0.001). No 3D precision differences were observed among intraoral scanners in the implant region (p = 0.561). Medit i700 presented the most favorable precision results in the molar region (p = 0.01). Conclusions: TRIOS 5 supports high impression accuracy and passive fit, while Medit i700 offers more reliable accuracy for contralateral molar scans, which can affect the digital occlusal record.

1. Introduction

Accurate implant impressions are essential for fabricating implant-supported restorations. Digital impressions can be transmitted virtually to the dental technician, streamlining the transfer process and reducing treatment time. Recent studies have shown that the accuracy of digital implant impressions is at least comparable to that of traditional implant impressions [1]. Accuracy consists of two components—trueness (the closeness of agreement between the average value and the true value) and precision (the closeness of agreement between independent test results), as defined by ISO 5725 [2].
Intraoral scanner (IOS) technology relies on imaging principles such as triangulation, confocal lasers, and active wavefront sampling to determine the relative position of the implant [3,4]. IOSs project a light source—typically a structured light pattern with a defined geometry or a laser beam—onto the dental surfaces and record its deformation with high-resolution cameras; the acquisition software then processes this information into a point cloud that is subsequently triangulated to create a mesh [5,6]. This mesh constitutes a direct digital reconstruction of the scanned object [5,6]. Wireless IOS models might be expected to exhibit greater surface deviations, as these systems transmit large data volumes via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. Such wireless transmission can be influenced by signal interference, bandwidth limitations, or connectivity interruptions, which may introduce latency and compromise the integrity of the point cloud [7,8]. As a result, the generated 3D mesh may show reduced precision or incomplete surface details [7,8].
Digital impression technologies have become fundamental in contemporary implant dentistry; however, the accuracy of IOSs continues to be influenced by several clinical and technical parameters. IOS performance varies due to operator skill, implant placement and position, implant depth and angulation, number of implants, and ambient conditions [9,10], as well as mesh holes, stitching, tissue, reliability, and umbrella [11]. In addition, patient-related scanning errors include humidity, bridges, fuzzy finish lines, and scanability noise errors [11]. Scan bodies, which are essential components in implant digitization, further contribute to variability, as their material properties, material geometry, and manufacturing tolerances affect both trueness and precision; titanium scan bodies offer high dimensional stability but may require surface treatment due to reflectivity [12,13], whereas polyether ether ketone (PEEK) scan bodies are more susceptible to deformation after repeated use or sterilization [12]. Recent research demonstrates that scan bodies fabricated with unsatisfactory optical properties can lead to clinically relevant inaccuracies, which may result in the misfit of implant-supported restorations and require additional adjustments [12,13]. Consequently, considering how scan body design properties interact with scanner optics and software algorithms is necessary for optimizing digital workflows and confirming reliable prosthetic outcomes [12,13].
Teeth function as stable geometric reference points that support image stitching during intraoral scanning, which explains why scans of dentate arches generally demonstrate acceptable accuracy [13,14,15]. Nonetheless, studies have reported inconsistent accuracy outcomes when scanning is confined specifically to anterior or posterior segments of a dentate arch [16,17]. These discrepancies have been associated with well-documented morphological differences between anterior and posterior teeth that influence alignment performance [15,17] as well as the limited span of the scanned area in restricted-region scans [18,19]. Moreover, the precision of intraoral scans has been shown to vary according to the scanned segment, with notable differences reported between complete-arch and partial-arch acquisitions in dentate patients [17,18,20]. During intraoral scanning, clinicians tend to concentrate on capturing the implant site, which may inadvertently reduce the accuracy of the remaining portions of the arch. Any discrepancy between the digitally acquired arch and the actual intra oral condition has the potential to influence occlusal contacts and inter-arch relationships, thereby affecting the overall functional outcome [20,21].
Three-dimensional analysis methods and metrology-grade 3D analysis software are widely used in dental research to evaluate the accuracy of digital scans of teeth and implant scan bodies (ISBs) [16,17]. However, conflicting results have been reported regarding scan accuracy when analyses are limited to the anterior or posterior regions of a dentate arch [18,19].
Despite the rapid progress in intraoral scanning technology, the accuracy of digital impressions for posterior single implants compared with contralateral posterior natural teeth has not been clearly evaluated [11,12]. Limited findings are available regarding the accuracy outcomes of intraoral scanners in the manufacturing process of single posterior crowns [22]. Moreover, performing a complete or partial arch scan may affect scan accuracy depending on the region scanned [23,24], as clinicians primarily focus on the implant site during scanning, potentially compromising the accuracy of the remaining arch and 3D analysis differences whose scan accuracy can also be crucial even though it may not directly influence the accuracy or fit of an implant-supported crown [24,25]. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the effect of different intraoral scanners on the scanning accuracy of posterior single implant scan body (ISB) and posterior single molar tooth (MT) scans using a full-arch scanning strategy. The null hypothesis was that intraoral scanner-dependent differences, including those related to data acquisition and processing algorithms, would not significantly affect the digital accuracy (trueness and precision) of posterior single-implant and contralateral posterior tooth scans obtained with a full-arch scanning strategy.

2. Materials and Methods

Ethics committee approval was not required for this in vitro study. The minimum number required in each group to detect a large effect size (d = 1.5) between two representative IOSs (TRIOS 3 and Primescan) and 3D measurements was set at 9 (α = 0.05; 1 − β = 0.80) for the models [23]. A similar number of digital scans was performed for each IOS used in this study. Power analysis was performed using G Power 3.9.1 software.
A Frasaco maxillary model (Frasaco ANA-4 AG3) was prepared with a single dental implant scan body (4.0 mm × 9 mm, Megagen ANYRidge–compatible Scan Post, Megagen, Daegu, Republic of Korea) positioned in the upper left molar region. To simulate clinical conditions, the transfer analog was subsequently embedded in self-curing acrylic resin (GC Pattern Resin, GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) (Figure 1). The master model was digitized by using an industrial scanner (Solutionix C500, MEDIT Corp., Seoul, Republic of Korea) to generate the reference model standard tessellation language (STL) files.
The master model and the opposing mandibular model were screw-fixed to a phantom head. All digital scans were performed under ideal conditions in a windowless room, with the dental unit light turned off, at an ambient temperature of approximately 23 °C and an illuminance of about 1000 lux, using the Medit i700 (Medit Corp., Seoul, Republic of Korea), TRIOS 3 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), and TRIOS 5 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) intraoral scanners (Table 1). TRIOS 5 performed automatic software calibration, whereas TRIOS 3 and Medit i700 were recalibrated after every 10 specimens were scanned before data collection. The scans were performed sequentially without repeatedly stopping and resuming, following a standardized manufacturer-recommended strategy in which the occlusal surfaces were scanned first, followed by the buccal and palatal surfaces. The left (implant) side of the model and the right (tooth) side were scanned, respectively. The scans were performed with the scanner positioned as close to the display as possible. Ten consecutive digital scans were conducted by the same experienced operator (M.O.), who has over two years of experience in digital impression making. A 5 min break was taken by the prosthodontist between each scanning session to minimize the risk of fatigue-related errors [26]. Each model was scanned using a complete-arch strategy, and the procedure was repeated until all scans were completed.
All data were exported in STL format (Figure 2) and imported into control software (Geomagic Control X 2022; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA). Scan alignment was performed by selecting corresponding points within the scanned regions using the best-fit alignment function, which enabled a standardized selection of points across all analyses [23,24]. A preliminary rough alignment was applied as an automatic point-based pre-alignment, followed by the use of a local best-fit tool between the reference and test scans. The scan body library file was subsequently aligned to the corresponding scan body mesh using a best-fit algorithm to ensure accurate orientation of the scan body geometry. After superimposition, 12 points on the implant (6 buccal and 6 palatal) (Figure 3 and Figure 4) and 18 points on the tooth (9 buccal and 9 palatal) (Figure 5 and Figure 6) were manually selected on the reference model and projected onto each IOS scan, from which 3D linear deviations were automatically calculated and averaged for each scan [23,24].
The STL format and its XYZ coordinate system enabled the standardization of all point positions during the analysis. For accuracy evaluation, each test scan was aligned with its corresponding reference scan to determine trueness (test–reference deviation), while the ten test scans within each scanner group were mutually aligned to assess precision (inter-scan variability).

Statistical Analysis

The IBM SPSS Statistics 22 program was used for statistical analyses. The Shapiro–Wilk test was conducted to assess whether the parameters were suitable for normal distribution. A one-way ANOVA and post hoc tests were performed to compare parameters among groups, and the Tukey HSD test was used to identify which group caused the differences. Significance was evaluated at the p < 0.05 level.

3. Results

Based on the one-way ANOVA test results, the 3D accuracy (trueness and precision) of the IOSs is listed in Table 2. Table 2 includes the implant scan body (ISB) and molar tooth (MT) 3D distance deviation results (trueness). Statistically significant differences were observed between the IOSs for both the ISB (p = 0.011) and MT deviations (p = 0.001). Based on the post hoc test, the mean ISB 3D trueness for the TRIOS 3 was significantly higher than that for the TRIOS 5 (p = 0.009). Medit i700 was not significantly different from either TRIOS 3 (p = 0.125) or TRIOS 5 (p = 0.454).
Statistically significant differences were observed among the IOSs with respect to MT deviations (p = 0.001). Post hoc testing revealed that the mean MT 3D trueness values for the TRIOS 5 were significantly higher and less successful than those for Medit i700 (p = 0.001) and TRIOS 3 (p = 0.001). Medit i700 and TRIOS 3 showed no significant difference (p = 0.837).
Based on the one-way ANOVA test results, the IOSs demonstrated comparable 3D precision for the ISBs, as summarized in Table 3 (p = 0.561). Medit i700 resulted in more accurate 3D precision results than TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 5 for MT (p = 0.01).

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to evaluate the scan accuracy of three IOSs while digitizing one posterior implant and one posterior molar tooth. The null hypothesis was rejected as TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 5 showed statistically different ISB trueness results; TRIOS 5 showed statistically different MT trueness results compared with TRIOS 3 and Medit i700; and Medit i700 showed statistically different MT precision results compared with TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 5.
The results obtained may vary depending on multiple factors; however, it is essential to first consider the differences in scanning technologies. All three devices incorporate different technological features. These results suggest that newer-generation scanners may provide enhanced image stitching and error compensation algorithms that improve surface registration, particularly in complex posterior regions. These results are consistent with previous reports that demonstrated improved digital accuracy in newer IOS generations due to algorithmic and hardware optimization [25,26].
Marques et al. (2022) [24] investigated the effects of scanned areas and operator-related factors on scan accuracy in a dentate arch during anterior single-implant scanning of a dentate model. Three operators performed 10 complete-arch scans and 10 partial-arch scans using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). Trueness and precision were higher at the anterior site than at the posterior for both complete- and partial-arch scans (p ≤ 0.022). Operator influence on complete-arch scan precision was not significant, whereas partial-arch scans showed limited operator-related differences. Partial-arch scans demonstrated higher trueness than complete-arch scans, while precision values were comparable. Overall accuracy was greater in the anterior region, with only a minor operator effect. In the present study, only a posterior implant was scanned, and complete-arch scans were performed by a single operator.
In a recent study, Dinçer et al. (2024) compared the wireless TRIOS 4 and the wired Neoscan 2000 intraoral scanners and found that both devices provided largely similar scanning accuracy when capturing a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system composed of PEEK and acrylic resin compositions [7]. In a different study, Jain et al. (2024) compared the accuracy of TRIOS 5 (wireless), Medit i700, and Primescan, and TRIOS 5 displayed the lowest deviation values, followed by Medit i700 and Primescan with a one-piece metal abutment system [26].
Sombun et al. (2023) evaluated three battery level ranges (30%, 31–60%, and 61–100%) and demonstrated that battery level did not affect the scan accuracy of two wireless IOSs, including TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 4, when scanning a maxillary cast with four metal spheres, whereas high battery levels resulted in shorter scanning times and a reduced number of captured 3D images, leading to lower storage space requirements [8]. In the present study, TRIOS 5 (wireless) exhibited higher trueness than TRIOS 3 with a 1-piece titanium scan body, whereas it showed lower trueness for molar scans. TRIOS 5 showed more successful trueness results than TRIOS 3 scanners for ISB. All of the scanners used in this study served similar precision results, showing non-independence of the operator.
Sicilia et al. (2024) emphasized that scan-body geometry and supramucosal height considerably affect the capture of 3D data, especially in angled posterior implants [27]. Our results demonstrated similar tendencies, with accuracy decreasing as scanning complexity increased in the posterior region. The influence of scan-body design and modifications [28,29] and reflective behavior on the optical triangulation process may partially explain these discrepancies between tooth and implant scans [30]. As digital scanning systems advance, scannable abutments and a range of designs provided by each company become available. In recent years, nearly all implant manufacturers have introduced scannable impression copings. The commercial ISB designs differ in terms of materials, sizes, surface geometries, reconfigurability, software/scanner compatibility, and cost variations [31]. The scan body, having a narrower upper surface area compared to the occlusal surfaces of the molars, may have facilitated the proper alignment of scans at the posterior site and increased the deviation among different intraoral scanners, and a Ti-6AL-4V-ELI Grade 5 (sandblasting with aluminum oxide) scan body was used for this study.
Moon et al. (2020) [20] reported that the accumulation of stitching errors is more pronounced in the distal segments during complete-arch scanning. In the present study, the posterior single implant scans showed higher deviation values than the contralateral tooth scans, supporting the notion that optical capturing in the distal region is less stable. This may be attributed to the geometry of the scan body, reflective surface characteristics, and reduced scanner visibility in the posterior area.
The fit of tooth-supported and implant-supported prostheses is a critical factor and directly affected by digital impression and its accuracy. In the literature, previous studies have demonstrated that variations in surface morphology, reflectivity, and geometric reference points can affect the trueness and precision of intraoral scans. Therefore, differences in optical behavior and landmark distribution must be taken into account. Siadat et al. (2024) found that tooth-based digital impressions tend to serve slightly lower root mean square (RMS) deviations compared with implant-based models [30], and Fathi et al. (2023) reported that the tooth–implant impression techniques demonstrated similar accuracy results [32]. In the present study, the molar tooth was left unprepared to represent an intact enamel surface, differing from previous studies that examined prepared teeth. This unprepared morphology may have provided differences for image matching, but also introduced light scattering, affecting overall trueness [9]. Recent evidence indicates that the surface characteristics of dental tissues and the scanning environment can affect accuracy.
The literature reports that the clinically acceptable error level for digital measurement accuracy in all techniques and scenarios is between 30 and 150 µm [33,34], and a recent systematic review reported that vertical misfits up to 160 µm and horizontal misfits up to 150 µm did not lead to complications in implant-supported restorations [35]. In the present study, when the 3D trueness and precision results were within the range of 0–40 µm, these values were considered clinically small and negligible. Based on the findings of this study, it is clinically relevant, given that error margins can accumulate throughout the digital workflow from impression taking to the manufacturing process. Therefore, even when the deviations are below 150 µm, the results should not be regarded as clinically insignificant based solely on this criterion. The higher standard deviations observed in several groups (e.g., TRIOS 5 MT ± 30 µm) primarily reflect increased digital measurement variability rather than a strict technical limitation of the scanner.
In a previous study, Lee et al. (2021) [36] investigated the trueness of digital implant impressions according to implant angulation and scan body material using the CS3600 (Carestream Dental), TRIOS 3 (3Shape) and Primescan (Sirona Dental Systems) intraoral scanners. The RMS values for the titanium scan body group (150.5 ± 45.4 to 294.1 ± 110.4 µm) were significantly lower than those for the polyether ether ketone scan body group (264.0 ± 76.5 to 359.4 ± 48.3 µm) (p < 0.001). In a different study, Sun et al. (2025) [37] found that the accuracy of titanium scanning bodies demonstrated superior spatial positioning accuracy compared with PEEK under the conditions of the study in a 3D printed model for TRIOS 3 (3Shape). In the scenario most comparable to our study, Ti showed a 180 ± 30 μm trueness deviation, and PEEK showed a 190 ± 15 μm trueness deviation; moreover, precision worsened as Ti showed a 70 ± 20 μm precision deviation and PEEK showed a 110 ± 20 μm precision deviation. Unlike that study, Frasaco jaw models were used in the present study, and a single titanium implant was evaluated instead of two adjacent implants, as in the scenario most comparable to our study. Moreover, the results of the present study demonstrated more favorable accuracy and precision values.
Fathi et al. scanned a molar implant scan body and a prepared premolar tooth in a phantom model, similar to the design of the present study, using the Omnicam (CEREC) intraoral scanner, and evaluated digital accuracy. Unlike our study, the molar implant scan body and the prepared tooth were positioned adjacent to each other. According to the results of that study, the scanning accuracy of the implant region was 105 ± 11.3 μm, whereas the scanning accuracy of the prepared tooth was 484.3 ± 16.7 μm. The 3D deviation values in that study were higher, and the simultaneous tooth–implant impression techniques compared showed comparable accuracy, with no significant differences [32]. In our study, the IOSs differed, and unlike that study, multiple intraoral scanners were compared.
Liu et al. (2024) [22] evaluated a total of 70 mandibular posterior teeth requiring single-crown restorations, which were randomly assigned to either intraoral scanning or conventional impression-taking, after which the resulting casts were scanned in the laboratory as part of a parallel-group randomized controlled trial. The mean marginal fit achieved with intraoral scanning (57.94 ± 22.51 µm) was superior to that obtained with diagnostic cast scanning (82.98 ± 21.72 µm) using the TRIOS (3Shape) scanner. Although a comparison between conventional and digital impressions was not performed in our study, deviation values similar to those obtained with TRIOS (3Shape) scans in that study were achieved.
In a previous study, Lee et al. (2021) [38] investigated the trueness of digital implant impressions according to the orientation of the implant scan body and the scanning method. With the flat surface of the implant scan body facing either the buccal or proximal direction, scans were obtained using one tabletop scanner (T500, Medit, Seoul, Republic of Korea) and three intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, 3ShapeCopenhagen, Denmark; CS3600, Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA, USA, and i500, Medit). The RMS was lower in the buccal groups (28.15 ± 8.87 µm, mean ± SD) than in the proximal groups (31.94 ± 8.95 µm; p = 0.031), and lower in the full-scan groups (27.92 ± 10.80 µm) than in the partial-scan groups (32.16 ± 6.35 µm; p = 0.016). When a tabletop scanner was used, trueness was higher when the ISB was connected buccally (14.34 ± 0.89 µm) compared with proximal connection (29.35 ± 1.15 µm; p < 0.001). In the present study, the flat surface of the implant scan body faced the buccal direction.
In a previous in vitro study, Moura et al. (2025) [39] evaluated the effects of margin preparation on dentin and enamel using different finishing protocols under dry and wet storage conditions. Enamel specimens demonstrated significantly higher precision (15.7 µm) than dentin specimens (24.3 µm) (p < 0.001). Moreover, the storage environment significantly influenced scanning accuracy (p < 0.001), with dentin exhibiting greater precision and trueness under dry conditions (18.3 µm) compared with wet conditions (37.3 µm) (p < 0.001). These findings suggest that substrate type and moisture conditions may play a critical role in digital scanning accuracy. In the present study, unprepared tooth structures were simulated; however, partial or full tooth preparations may be associated with altered surface characteristics and moisture levels. Therefore, further studies are required to investigate the influence of different preparation designs and moisture conditions on scanning accuracy.
The main limitation of this in vitro study is the use of a static model that does not fully replicate clinical intraoral conditions; however, controlled settings were necessary to ensure reproducibility and isolate device-related variables. Performing all scans with a single operator constitutes another methodological limitation; although this approach eliminates inter-operator variability and ensures consistency, it may, to some extent, restrict the generalizability of the findings. Along with this, considering that higher precision outcomes may indicate a greater influence of operator-related errors, the use of a single operator may be considered to provide more reliable results.
One limitation of this study is that the implant scan body was positioned only in the left posterior region. Although this selection reflects common clinical access conditions encountered during intraoral scanning, particularly in right-handed operator setups, it may limit the generalizability of the findings to other clinical scenarios, such as different operator handedness or alternative implant locations.
Future research should include in vivo assessments comparing IOS accuracy in various clinical conditions. Molar dental preparation was not implemented in this study; however, results might have changed if it had been applied according to these studies. Different scenarios are needed to investigate both implant and tooth digital accuracy. Studies indicate that it is important to consider the variable digital accuracy in dental arches that contain both implant-supported materials and tooth-supported tissues. Further research is needed on impression accuracy in clinical scenarios involving both implant-supported and tooth-supported cases, including the involvement of multiple operators, in vivo conditions, and different scan bodies and clinical scenarios. The need to analyze the same study using different alignments is also one of the limitations.
This study highlights the differences between implant scan bodies and molar structures; further research on this topic is warranted. This contributes to reducing potential misfits, improving occlusal and proximal contact accuracy, and ultimately enhancing the long-term success of digitally fabricated prostheses.

5. Conclusions

Based on the findings of the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn. Choosing TRIOS 5 will help clinicians achieve high impression accuracy, resulting in the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis with a passive fit, whereas Medit i700 provides the most reliable accuracy values for the controversial molar scans, which may affect the occlusion digital record. This study recommends that all tested IOSs were within the clinically acceptable deviation limits for a single posterior implant-supported prosthesis. Further studies are needed to investigate operator-dependent variables and data integrity issues associated with wireless intraoral scanner designs; further studies employing scan bodies made of different materials are, therefore, needed to clarify how the data transmission mechanism influences the surface quality recorded by wireless IOSs in prosthodontics, especially in posterior regions.

Author Contributions

Concept/Design: I.K.B.; data collection/analysis/interpretation: M.O.; drafting article: I.K.B., M.O. and F.S.; critical revision of article: I.K.B. and F.S.; statistics: I.K.B. and F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author. The corresponding author takes full responsibility for the data, analyses, and interpretation of the data, and for providing accurate data availability policies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Bi, C.; Wang, X.; Tian, F.; Qu, Z.; Zhao, J. Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: Two and three dimensional evaluations. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2022, 14, 236–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ender, A.; Mehl, A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013, 109, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahlholm, P.; Sipilä, K.; Vallittu, P.; Jakonen, M.; Kotiranta, U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 27, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mangano, F.G.; Hauschild, U.; Veronesi, G.; Imburgia, M.; Mangano, C.; Admakin, O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019, 19, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mangano, F.; Gandolfi, A.; Luongo, G.; Logozzo, S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017, 17, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Joda, T.; Zarone, F.; Ferrari, M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2017, 17, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Dinçer, G.; Molinero-Mourelle, P.; Dönmez, M.B.; Kahveci, Ç.; Yilmaz, B.; Çakmak, G. Scan accuracy of wireless intraoral scanners while digitizing a combined scan body-healing abutment system. J. Dent. 2024, 151, 105413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sombun, S.; Ongthiemsak, C. In vitro study of the accuracy and efficiency of wireless intraoral scanners at various battery levels. J. Dent. 2023, 138, 104686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ochoa-López, G.; Cascos, R.; Antonaya-Martín, J.L.; Revilla-León, M.; Gómez-Polo, M. Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans. J. Dent. 2022, 121, 104138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rutkūnas, V.; Auškalnis, L.; Pletkus, J. Intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A narrative review. J. Dent. 2024, 148, 105152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Revilla-León, M.; Aragoneses, R.; Arroyo Valverde, E.M.; Gómez-Polo, M.; Kois, J.C. Classification of Scanning Errors of Digital Scans Recorded by Using Intraoral Scanners. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2025, 37, 1363–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gómez-Polo, M.; Donmez, M.B.; Çakmak, G.; Yilmaz, B.; Revilla-León, M. Influence of implant scan body design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on intraoral scanning accuracy: A systematic review. J. Prosthodont. 2023, 32, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baranowski, J.H.; Stenport, V.F.; Braian, M.; Wennerberg, A. Effects of scan body material, length and top design on digital implant impression accuracy and usability: An in vitro study. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2025, 17, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gracis, S.; Appiani, A.; Noè, G. Digital workflow in implant prosthodontics: The critical aspects for reliable accuracy. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2023, 35, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Haddadi, Y.; Bahrami, G.; Isidor, F. Accuracy of crowns based on digital intraoral scanning compared to conventional impression-a split-mouth randomised clinical study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 4043–4050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Braian, M.; Wennerberg, A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: A comparative in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 122, 129–136.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ender, A.; Zimmermann, M.; Mehl, A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2019, 22, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  18. Son, K.; Lee, K.B. Effect of tooth types on the accuracy of dental 3D scanners: An in vitro study. Materials 2020, 13, 1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Resende, C.C.D.; Barbosa, T.A.Q.; Moura, G.F.; Tavares, L.D.N.; Rizzante, F.A.P.; George, F.M.; Neves, F.D.D.; Mendonça, G. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 294–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Moon, Y.G.; Lee, K.M. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scans between complete-arch scan and quadrant scan. Prog. Orthod. 2020, 21, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Y.; Tian, J.; Wei, D.; Di, P.; Lin, Y. Quantitative clinical adjustment analysis of posterior single implant crown in a chairside digital workflow: A randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2019, 30, 1059–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Liu, X.; Feng, K.; Dong, L.; Liu, L.; Ni, L.; Zheng, D. Accuracy and Efficiency of Digitally Fabricated All-Ceramic Crowns from Conventional Impressions and Intraoral Scans: A Single-Blind Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2024, 37, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Donmez, M.B.; Mathey, A.; Gäumann, F.; Mathey, A.; Yilmaz, B.; Abou-Ayash, S. Scan accuracy and time efficiency of different implant-supported fixed partial denture situations depending on the intraoral scanner and scanned area: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2024, 131, 1198–1207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marques, V.R.; Çakmak, G.; Yilmaz, H.; Abou-Ayash, S.; Donmez, M.B.; Yilmaz, B. Effect of Scanned Area and Operator on the Accuracy of Dentate Arch Scans with a Single Implant. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yilmaz, B.; Marques, V.R.; Donmez, M.B.; Cuellar, A.R.; Lu, W.E.; Abou-Ayash, S.; Çakmak, G. Influence of 3D analysis software on measured deviations of CAD-CAM resin crowns from virtual design file: An in-vitro study. J. Dent. 2022, 118, 103933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jain, S.; Sayed, M.E.; Khawaji, R.A.A.; Hakami, G.A.J.; Solan, E.H.M.; Daish, M.A.; Jokhadar, H.F.; AlResayes, S.S.; Altoman, M.S.; Alshehri, A.H.; et al. Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study. Med. Sci. Monit. 2024, 30, e946624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sicilia, E.; Lagreca, G.; Papaspyridakos, P.; Finkelman, M.; Cobo, J.; Att, W.; Revilla-León, M. Effect of supramucosal height of a scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy of intraoral scanning: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2024, 131, 1126–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Uzel, S.M.; Guncu, M.B.; Aktas, G.; Arikan, H.; Reiss, N.; Turkyilmaz, I. Influence of the implant scan body modifications on trueness of digital impressions. J. Dent. Sci. 2023, 18, 1771–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Eldabe, A.K.; Adel-Khattab, D.; Botros, K.H. Trueness of tooth modified scan bodies as a novel technique for edentulous full arch implant supported dental prosthesis: An in vivo prospective comparative study. BMC Oral Health 2025, 25, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Siadat, H.; Chitsaz, F.; Zeighami, S.; Esmaeilzadeh, A. Accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2024, 10, e857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mohajerani, R.; Djalalinia, S.; Alikhasi, M. The Effects of Scan Body Geometry on the Precision and the Trueness of Implant Impressions Using Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review. Dent. J. 2025, 13, 252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fathi, A.; Rismanchian, M.; Yazdekhasti, A.; Salamati, M. Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques. Clin. Exp. Dent. Res. 2023, 9, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Flügge, T.; van der Meer, W.J.; Gonzalez, B.G.; Vach, K.; Wismeijer, D.; Wang, P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2018, 29, 374–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alpkılıç, D.; Değer, S. In Vitro Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional Impression and Four Intraoral Scanners in Four Different Implant Impression Scenarios. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2022, 1, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Abduo, J.; Elseyoufi, M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2018, 26, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, J.H.; Bae, J.H.; Lee, S.Y. Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 21892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sun, X.; Li, L.; Wen, C. Effects of inter-implant tooth loss and scan body material on digital impression accuracy: An in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2025, 25, 1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lee, B.; Nam, N.-E.; Shin, S.-H.; Lim, J.-H.; Shim, J.-S.; Kim, J.-E. Evaluation of the Trueness of Digital Implant Impressions According to the Implant Scan Body Orientation and Scanning Method. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Moura, G.F.; Mendonça, G.; Rizzante, F.A.P.; Soares, P.V.; Meirelles, L.A.D. Influence of enamel and dentin roughness on intraoral scanner accuracy. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2025, 28. Epub ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Applsci 16 00495 g001
Figure 1. The maxillary master model was prepared with an implant analog (Megagen ANYRidge–compatible Scan Post, Megagen, Daegu, Republic of Korea) in position no. 26 (left side molar), as shown in the figure.
Figure 1. The maxillary master model was prepared with an implant analog (Megagen ANYRidge–compatible Scan Post, Megagen, Daegu, Republic of Korea) in position no. 26 (left side molar), as shown in the figure.
Applsci 16 00495 g001
Applsci 16 00495 g002
Figure 2. Standard Tessellation Language (STL) reference data obtained from the master model.
Figure 2. Standard Tessellation Language (STL) reference data obtained from the master model.
Applsci 16 00495 g002
Applsci 16 00495 g003
Figure 3. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the implant scan body from the buccal aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Figure 3. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the implant scan body from the buccal aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Applsci 16 00495 g003
Applsci 16 00495 g004
Figure 4. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the implant scan body from the lingual aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Figure 4. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the implant scan body from the lingual aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Applsci 16 00495 g004
Applsci 16 00495 g005
Figure 5. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the molar tooth from the buccal aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Figure 5. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the molar tooth from the buccal aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Applsci 16 00495 g005
Applsci 16 00495 g006
Figure 6. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the molar tooth from the lingual aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Figure 6. The selected points used for the evaluation of the scanning accuracy of the molar tooth from the lingual aspect. Representative color-difference map illustrating 3D deviation analysis between reference points. Maximum and minimum deviation thresholds were set at ±50 µm, with a tolerance range of ±10 µm (green).
Applsci 16 00495 g006
Table 1. The intraoral scanners used in this study.
Table 1. The intraoral scanners used in this study.
View of the IOSsImaging Technology
Medit i700Applsci 16 00495 i001Real-time full-color 3D data acquisition during continuous scanning
TRIOS 3Applsci 16 00495 i002Real-time 3D scanning with confocal imaging; full-color digital impression acquisition with high frame-rate continuous capture
TRIOS 5
(wireless)		Applsci 16 00495 i0033D capture engine; full-color digital impression acquisition; calibration-free optical system
Table 2. Mean trueness and its standard deviation (SD) in micrometers (µm) of the implant scan’s body and molar tooth obtained with intraoral scanners. n = 10 scans for each group.
Table 2. Mean trueness and its standard deviation (SD) in micrometers (µm) of the implant scan’s body and molar tooth obtained with intraoral scanners. n = 10 scans for each group.
ScannerImplant Scan Body (ISB)
Mean ± SD		Molar Tooth (MT)
Mean ± SD
Medit i70020 ± 20 ᵃᵇ0 ± 10 ᵃ
TRIOS 340 ± 20 ᵃ10 ± 20 ᵃ
TRIOS 510 ± 20 ᵇ40 ± 30 ᵇ
p-value0.011 *0.001 *
Mean ± SD = Mean ± Standard deviation, * p < 0.05 (One-way ANOVA). A p-value > 0.05 indicates no difference in scanner trueness according to the table. The reported values do not correspond to true zero measurements but arise from rounding effects associated with very small mean deviations. Different superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences among scanners within each column (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Mean precision and its standard deviation (SD) in micrometers (µm) of the implant scan body and molar tooth obtained with intraoral scanners. n = 10 scans for each group.
Table 3. Mean precision and its standard deviation (SD) in micrometers (µm) of the implant scan body and molar tooth obtained with intraoral scanners. n = 10 scans for each group.
ScannerImplant Scan Body (ISB)
Mean ± SD		Molar Tooth (MT)
Mean ± SD
Medit i70020.2 ± 22.3 a2.6 ± 10.1 a
TRIOS 338.3 ± 17.1 a8 ± 21.7 b
TRIOS 59.3 ± 20 a35.8 ± 27.7 b
p-value0.5610.01 *
Mean ± SD = Mean ± Standard deviation, * p < 0.05 (One-way ANOVA). A p-value > 0.05 indicates no difference in scanner precision according to the table. Different superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences among scanners within each column (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kecik Buyukhatipoglu, I.; Ozdemir, M.; Sari, F. Comparative Evaluation of Digital Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Posterior Implant and Tooth Scans. Appl. Sci. 2026, 16, 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010495

AMA Style

Kecik Buyukhatipoglu I, Ozdemir M, Sari F. Comparative Evaluation of Digital Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Posterior Implant and Tooth Scans. Applied Sciences. 2026; 16(1):495. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010495

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kecik Buyukhatipoglu, Isil, Melek Ozdemir, and Fatih Sari. 2026. "Comparative Evaluation of Digital Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Posterior Implant and Tooth Scans" Applied Sciences 16, no. 1: 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010495

APA Style

Kecik Buyukhatipoglu, I., Ozdemir, M., & Sari, F. (2026). Comparative Evaluation of Digital Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Posterior Implant and Tooth Scans. Applied Sciences, 16(1), 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/app16010495

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop