Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and splinted open-tray conventional implant impression (SOCI) in partial and total edentulism.
Materials and methods: Four gypsum models (Model A-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, and right canine; Model B- implants at mandibular right canine, left central incisor, and left canine; Model C-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, right canine, left central incisor, and left canine; and Model D-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, right canine, left central incisor, left canine, left second premolar, and left second molar) were prepared, and four different IOSs (Aadva IOS, CS 3600, Trios 3, and Emerald) and one polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) were used. Reference models were digitized with a high-resolution industrial scanner, and data were superimposed. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated by software and defined as deviation values after superimposition. The oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test were performed to analyze the data (P < .05).
Results: For Models A and B, the truest impressions were made with Aadva, followed by CS 3600, PVS, Trios 3, and Emerald, respectively, while for Model C, the truest impressions were made with CS 3600, followed by Aadva, PVS, Trios 3, and Emerald, and for Model D, the truest impressions were made with Aadva, followed by CS 3600, PVS, Emerald, and Trios 3 (P < .05). There was no statistical difference between groups for precision in Models A, B, and C (P > .05); however, PVS showed lower precision values than other groups in Model D (P < .05).
Conclusion: In partial edentulism, IOSs are true and precise as SOCI except Emerald. However, the trueness of IOSs is not favorable in total edentulism cases. SOCI with PVS in total edentulism treated with implants is less precise than IOSs.
