Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2024 )Cite this article scanner cad cam dental
This systematic review aimed to compare the accuracy of conventional impression techniques with digital methods, including intraoral scanners or photogrammetry, in full-arch implant-supported prostheses.
An electronic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane) databases was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review included in vitro studies published between January 2000 to January 2024 that compared the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques. Descriptive analyses were performed using the data extracted from each study.
Twenty-three in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, eighteen utilized intraoral scanners and five employed photogrammetry. Twelve studies concluded that digital techniques were more accurate than conventional methods, six found conventional techniques to be more accurate, and five reported comparable accuracy between the two methods.
Within limitation of the included studies, digital implant impression technique were generally more accurate than conventional methods for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. This review suggests that future research should use perform standardized methodologies and report consistent accuracy outcomes to enable the inclusion of more studies in a meta-analysis.
The study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023397916).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Receive 4 print issues and online access
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The data supporting this article can be made available by the corresponding author upon request.
Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;14:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x
Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE. Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12:371–5.
Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Biomed Res Int. 2021:2673040. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2673040
Kaya G, Bilmenoglu C. Accuracy of 14 intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept: a comparative in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14:388–98. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.6.388
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Róth I, Czigola A, Fehér D, Vitai V, Joós-Kovács GL, Hermann P, et al. Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22:140 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02176-4
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kosago P, Ungurawasaporn C, Kukiattrakoon B. Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2023;32:616–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13604
Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021;21:636 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Lee SJ, Kim SW, Lee JJ, Cheong CW. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral digital scanners: evaluation of surface topography and precision. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8:52 https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8020052
Borbola D, Berkei G, Simon B, Romanszky L, Sersli G, DeFee M, et al. In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy. J Dent. 2023;129:104391 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104391
Ke Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun Y. Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2023;135:104561 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104561
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1360–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12994
Önöral Ö, Kurtulmus-Yılmaz S, Keskin A, Ozan O. Influence of the angulation and insertion depth of implants on the 3D trueness of conventional and digital impressions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37:1186–94. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9907
Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:465–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12567
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725-1:2023 - Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results – Part 1: general principles and definitions. 2023. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5725:-1:ed-2:v1:en:en.html. (accessed October 2023).
Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:574–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.002
Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10:101–20.
Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Al-Haj Husain N, Özcan M. Comparison of the clinical accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2020;28:173–81. https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_02028Rutkunas09
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:715–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375
Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC, Peláez-Rico J, López-Suárez C, Rodríguez-Alonso V, Suárez-García MJ. Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:2026 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042026
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26:929–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000683
Zhang YJ, Shi JY, Qian SJ, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: a systematic review. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2021;14:157–79.
Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:1253–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:660–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13211
Drancourt N, Auduc C, Mouget A, Mouminoux J, Auroy P, Veyrune JL, et al. Accuracy of conventional and digital impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses: an in vitro study. J Pers Med. 2023;13:832 https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13050832
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Tan S, Tan MY, Wong KM, Maria R, Tan KBC. Comparison of 3D positional accuracy of implant analogs in printed resin models versus conventional stone casts: Effect of implant angulation. J Prosthodont. 2023;1-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13647
Yang B, Mallett S, Takwoingi Y, Davenport CF, Hyde CJ, Whiting PF, et al. QUADAS-C: a tool for assessing risk of bias in comparative diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:1592–9. https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-2234
Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont. 2021;30:163–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13264
Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018:3761750. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3761750
Conejo J, Yoo TH, Atria PJ, Fraiman H, Blatz MB. In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings. J Prosthet Dent. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.012
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 Clin Exp Dent. 2021;13:e487–e92. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.57926
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Jeong M, Ishikawa-Nagai S, Lee JD, Lee SJ. Accuracy of impression scan bodies for complete arch fixed implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.11.015
Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Díaz-Castro C, Ríos-Santos JV, Padrós R, Mur JG, et al. Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:1599 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081599
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:354–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006
Blanco-Plard A, Hernandez A, Pino F, Vargas N, Rivas-Tumanyan S, Elias A. 3D accuracy of a conventional method versus three digital scanning strategies for completely edentulous maxillary implant impressions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2023;38:1211–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10266
Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31:625–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13598
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122:543–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.018
Shaikh M, Lakha T, Kheur S, Qamri B, Kheur M. Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022;22:398–404. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_52_22
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:470–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.005
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
D’Haese R, Vrombaut T, Roeykens H, Vandeweghe S. In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Clin Med. 2022;11:594 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030594
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Gintaute A, Papatriantafyllou N, Aljehani M, Att W. Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures for multiple straight and tilted dental implants. Int J Esthet Dent. 2018;13:550–65.
Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24:e89–e95. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.22822
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Revilla-León M, Rubenstein J, Methani MM, Piedra-Cascón W, Özcan M, Att W. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:160–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.019
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100:285–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5
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;122:129–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.007
Jemt T, Hjalmarsson L. In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:e175–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 10360-2:2009 - Geometrical product specifications (GPS) – Acceptance and reverification tests for coordinated measuring machines (CMM) – Part 2: CMMs used for measuring linear dimensions. 2009. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:10360:-2:ed-3:v1:en.html. (accessed October 2023).
Galeva H, Uzunov T, Sofronov Y, Todorov G. Evaluation of the accuracy of the optical scanners used in the modern dental practice. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1492:012017 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1492/1/012017
Alshawaf B, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:835–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13297
Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:792–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5431
Etemad-Shahidi Y, Qallandar OB, Evenden J, Alifui-Segbaya F, Ahmed KE. Accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed full-arch dental models: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9:3357 https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103357
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:102–9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3592
Marques S, Ribeiro P, Falcão C, Lemos BF, Ríos-Carrasco B, Ríos-Santos JV, et al. Digital impressions in implant dentistry: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1020 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031020
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kim J-H, Kim KR, Kim S. Critical appraisal of implant impression accuracies: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:185–192.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.005
Hussein MO. Photogrammetry technology in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;130:318–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.015
Agustín-Panadero R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Gomar-Vercher S, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Stereophotogrammetry for recording the position of multiple implants: technical description. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28:631–6. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4146
Gómez-Polo M, Gómez-Polo C, Del Río J, Ortega R. Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:506–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.029
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Molinero-Mourelle P, Lam W, Cascos-Sánchez R, Azevedo L, Gómez-Polo M. Photogrammetric and intraoral digital impression technique for the rehabilitation of multiple unfavorably positioned dental implants: a clinical report. J Oral Implantol. 2019;45:398–402. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00140
Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Bagán L, Giménez B, Peñarrocha M. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014;19:e366–371. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.19365
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Pradíes G, Ferreiroa A, Özcan M, Giménez B, Martínez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145:338–44. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2013.45
Sánchez-Monescillo A, Hernanz-Martín J, González-Serrano C, González-Serrano J, Duarte S Jr. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique. Quintessence Int 2019;50:288–93. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a42098
Suarez MJ, Paisal I, Rodriguez-Alonso V, Lopez-Suarez C. Combined stereophotogrammetry and laser-sintered, computer-aided milling framework for an implant-supported mandibular prosthesis: a case history report. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31:60–62. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5259
Fu XJ, Liu M, Liu BL, Tonetti MS, Shi JY, Lai HC. Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14183
Pozzi A, Carosi P, Gallucci GO, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;34:1106–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14141
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
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;37:39–48. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9172
Abduo J, Palamara JEA. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7:75 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00355-6
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Tsagkalidis G, Tortopidis D, Mpikos P, Kaisarlis G, Koidis P. Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114:517–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.005
Rasaie V, Abduo J, Hashemi S. Accuracy of intraoral scanners for recording the denture bearing areas: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2021;30:520–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13345
Carneiro Pereira AL, Souza Curinga MR, Melo Segundo HV, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. Factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning of total edentulous arches rehabilitated with multiple implants: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:855–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.001
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Nitchakul Joensahakij & Wareeratn Chengprapakorn
Faculty of Dentistry, Siam University, Bangkok, Thailand
Bumrung rad international hospital, Bangkok, Thailand
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
NJ: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing—Original draft. PS: Conceptualization, Supervision. WC: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing—Review & Editing.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Joensahakij, N., Serichetaphongse, P. & Chengprapakorn, W. The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review. Evid Based Dent (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01045-z
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-024-01045-z
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
extraoral scanners in dentistry Evidence-Based Dentistry (Evid Based Dent) ISSN 1476-5446 (online) ISSN 1462-0049 (print)