Beatriz Gim?nez, DDS/Mutlu ?zcan, DDS, Dr Med Dent, PhD/Francisco Mart?nez-Rus, DDS, PhD/Guillermo Prad?es, DDS, PhD: Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal red laser technology, taking into consideration clinical parameters such as operator experience and angulation and depth of implants. Materials and Methods: A maxillary master model with six implants (located bilaterally in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions) was fitted with six polyether ether ketone scan bodies. One second premolar implant was placed with 30 degrees of mesial angulation; the opposite implant was positioned with 30 degrees of distal angulation. The lateral incisor implants were placed 2 or 4 mm subgingivally. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed intraoral scanning. Five different interimplant distances were then measured. The files obtained from the scans were imported with reverse-engineering software. Measurements were then made with a coordinate measurement machine, with values from the master model used as reference values. The deviations from the actual values were then calculated. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and the effects of different implant angulations and depths were compared statistically. Results: Overall, operator 3 obtained significantly less accurate results. The angulated implants did not significantly influence accuracy compared to the parallel implants. Differences were found in the amount of error in the different quadrants. The second scanned quadrant had significantly worse results than the first scanned quadrant. Impressions of the implants placed at the tissue level were less accurate than implants placed 2 and 4 mm subgingivally. Conclusions: The operator affected the accuracy of measurements, but the performance of the operator was not necessarily dependent on experience. Angulated implants did not decrease the accuracy of the digital impression system tested. The scanned distance affected the predictability of the accuracy of the scanner, and the error increased with the increased length of the scanned section.

Beatriz Gim?nez, DDS/Guillermo Prad?es, DDS, PhD/Francisco Mart?nez-Rus, DDS, PhD/Mutlu ?zcan, DDS, Dr Med Dent, PhD: Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of two digital impression systems based on the same technology but different postprocessing correction modes of customized software, with consideration of several clinical parameters. Materials and Methods: A maxillary master model with six implants located in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions was fitted with six cylindrical scan bodies. Scan bodies were placed at different angulations or depths apical to the gingiva. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed scans with either 3D Progress (MHT) or ZFX Intrascan (Zimmer Dental). Five different distances between implants (scan bodies) were measured, yielding five data points per impression and 100 per impression system. Measurements made with a high-accuracy three-dimensional coordinate measuring machine (CMM) of the master model acted as the true values. The values obtained from the digital impressions were subtracted from the CMM values to identify the deviations. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and implant angulation and depth were compared statistically. Results: Experience of the operator, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in deviation from the true values with both 3D Progress and ZFX Intrascan. Accuracy in the first scanned quadrant was significantly better with 3D Progress, but ZFX Intrascan presented better accuracy in the full arch. Conclusion: Neither of the two systems tested would be suitable for digital impression of multiple-implant prostheses. Because of the errors, further development of both systems is required.