Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov 19;14(11):e0222070.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222070. eCollection 2019.

Trueness of Digital Intraoral Impression in Reproducing Multiple Implant Position

Free PMC article

Trueness of Digital Intraoral Impression in Reproducing Multiple Implant Position

Ryan Jin-Young Kim et al. PLoS One. .
Free PMC article


The aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital impression of simulated implant scan bodies in a partially edentulous model. A 3D printed partially edentulous mandible model made of Co-Cr with a total of 6 bilaterally positioned cylinders in the canine, second premolar, and second molar area served as the study model. Digital scans of the model were made with a reference scanner (steroSCAN neo) and 5 IOSs (CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, i500, iTero Element, and TRIOS 3) (n = 10). For each IOS's dataset, the XYZ coordinates of the cylinders were obtained from the reference point and the deviations from the reference scanner were calculated using a 3D reverse engineering program (Rapidform). The trueness values were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney post hoc test. Direction and amount of deviation differed among cylinder position and among IOSs. Regardless of the IOS type, the cylinders positioned on the left second molar, nearest to the scanning start point, showed the smallest deviation. The deviation generally increased further away from scanning start point towards the right second molar. TRIOS 3 and i500 outperformed the other IOSs for partially edentulous digital impression. The accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, and iTero Element were similar on the left side, but they showed more deviations on the right side of the arch when compared to the other IOSs. The accuracy of IOS is still an area that needs to be improved.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Fig 1
Fig 1. Experimental model.
(A) Cylinders and reference spheres digitally formed using a reverse engineering software. (B) 3D printed Co-Cr master model.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Trueness values (μm) of IOSs at each cylinder position in XYZ axes.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Representative deviation of 3D digital casts.
Range of deviation is color-coded from −100 μm (blue) to +100 μm (red).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 article


    1. Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I, Kisch J. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(4):282–7. 10.1111/jopr.12410 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):149 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1113–8. 10.1111/clr.12234 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(6):895–903 e1. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekunas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:101–20. . - PubMed

Publication types


Grant support

This work received a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project from Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) (, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare (HI18C0435) to JMP. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.