Background/Objectives: This study aimed to compare the cost and time implications for implant-supported prosthesis comparing three digital impression techniques: digitization with an intraoral scanner, digitization of the conventional impression (without dental casts) and digitization of the stone models. Methods: To assess the time and cost of digital impression techniques on implants, time records on intraoral scans were consulted and three models were created with one, two and six implants to assess extraoral procedures time. Costs were evaluated based on material consumption, time expenditure and operator-related expenses. Time was recorded in three stages: (1) impression-taking, (2) model fabrication and (3) overall workflow completion. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA to compare cost and time differences across workflows. Results: Intraoral scanning presented a reduction in chair-side time between 4 and 20% when compared to extraoral techniques. For the three clinical situations evaluated, the intraoral scanning always presented the lowest cost. The extraoral digitization of impressions showed a reduction between 51.9% and 53.6% in laboratory time and between 3.5% and 7.6% in total cost compared to stone models digitization. Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that intraoral scanning is a more cost-effective and time-efficient alternative to traditional impression methods, providing advantages in terms of reduced material use and shorter procedural durations.

The objective of this in vitro study is to evaluate and compare the precision of digital impressions obtained using intraoral scanners and photogrammetry devices for full-arch implant-supported oral rehabilitation. Three reference models were created with various spatial distributions of Straumann implants, according to the Caramês I Classification: (i) option A with six implants; (ii) option B with four implants; and (iii) option C with four implants. Thirty digital impressions were taken for each of the reference models: ten with the Intraoral 3Shape Trios 3 scanner, ten with the Medit i500 intraoral scanner, and ten with the PIC Dental photogrammetry device. Intra-group best-fit overlaps were performed between the virtual models obtained, and accuracy was evaluated using root mean square (RMS) values. A significance level of p = 0.05 was defined. Mean values were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. All scanners studied showed high precision, with RMS values similar for each implant distribution. The PIC Dental photogrammetry device demonstrated the best results for the CCI A and B distributions, with mean values of 11.28 µm and 14.44 µm, respectively. For the CCI C distribution, the 3Shape Trios 3 scanner achieved the best result, with a mean value of 5.96 µm. Among all devices, the implant distribution showing the highest RMS values was the CCI B, with mean values between 14.44 µm and 16.96 µm. The PIC Dental device was the only method that did not exhibit statistically significant differences in RMS values across the different distributions studied, indicating that its performance is unaffected by distribution variations. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the RMS values among the three types of scanners. Overall, a smaller number of implants and closer distribution between them resulted in improved precision for digital impressions in full-arch implant rehabilitation.

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of impressions made using two different silicones and corresponding stone casts in full-arch implant rehabilitation, using two laboratory scanners. A master model with six dental implants was created, scanned with a 12-megapixel scanner and used as digital master model. Ten implant impressions were obtained via two silicone impressions systems—Coltene^® and Zhermack^®—using the open-tray technique and poured gypsum. Two extraoral scanning systems (S600 ARTI Zirkonzhan^® and Identica T500 Medit^®) were used to scan the impressions and stone casts. Best-fit superimpositions were conducted between the master model and the virtual models obtained. A significance level of p < 0.05 was considered. The accuracy of the Medit^® scanner was 82.26 [53.18; 111.34] µm for Coltene^® silicone and 87.43 [72.00; 102.86] µm for Zhermack^® silicone, and the accuracy of the Zirkonzhan^® scanner was 69.90 [62.37; 77.43] µm for Coltene^® silicone and 80.67 [65.77; 95.57] µm for Zhermack^® silicone, without significant differences between scanners. When comparing the two silicones, no significant differences were found for the Medit^® (p = 0.112) or Zirkonzhan^® scanners (p = 0.162). The Zhermack^® scanner showed better accuracy than the corresponding stone casts in the two scanners, Medit^® (p = 0.019) and Zirkonzahn^® (p = 0.002). The extraoral digitalization of impressions in edentulous dental arches with six implants proves to be a valid technique.

Objectives: Considering the need for intraoral polishing of zirconia restorations, this in vitro study aimed to 1) evaluate the 2D and 3D surface roughness of differe...