Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Dept. of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dental Implant Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
2
Dept. of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
3
PhD in Biostatistics, Modeling of Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
4
Resident in Dental Prosthetics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
5
Dentistry Student, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
10.30476/dentjods.2026.107303.2734
Abstract
Background: Precise measurement of distances between implant abutments and adjacent structures is essential for successful dental restorations, as inaccuracies may lead to complications such as suboptimal fit, food impaction, and periodontal issues.
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (3Shape Tri-os 3, Planmeca Emerald, Shining DX-CX, and Kodak Carestream CS3800) and one extra-o-ral scanner (Map 400 AG) in recording inter-implant abutment distances ranging from 1 to 6 mm.
Materials and Method: An in vitro experimental study simulating an edentulous maxillary arch was prepared with two implant analogs placed at controlled distances (1–6mm apart in 1mm increments). Five scanners were used for each distance to take three scans each, resulting in 90 datasets. Standardized ambient conditions were maintained throughout. The resulti-ng scans, exported in STL format, were analyzed using Exocad software to measure the dist-ance between abutments. A digital caliper provided reference measurements. We assessed data normality with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests and performed statistical analyses using one-way ANOVA and LSD post hoc tests at a significance level of 0.05.
Results: One-way ANOVA followed by LSD post-hoc tests revealed statistically significant differences among the five scanners at all inter-abutment distances (1–6mm; p Value< 0.001 for each distance). The extraoral scanner Map 400 AG showed the highest overall accuracy, with mean measured distances closest to the reference values (e.g., 0.995± 0.006mm at 1mm, 1.983±0.007mm at 2mm, 3.015±0.012mm at 3mm, 4.000±0.001mm at 4mm, 4.940±0.026 mm at 5mm, and 5.990±0.007mm at 6mm). In contrast, the Planmeca Emerald intraoral scanner consistently exhibited the lowest accuracy and the largest deviations from the true distances across all intervals. Among the intraoral scanners, 3Shape Trios 3 and Carestream CS3800 demonstrated superior accuracy compared with Planmeca Emerald and, in most distances, also outperformed Shining DX-CX; the relative ranking of 3Shape Trios 3 and Carestream CS3800 varied slightly with distance (Carestream CS3800 was significantly more accurate than 3Shape Trios 3 only at 2 mm).
Conclusion: Scanner type significantly affected the precision of inter-implant distance measurements. The Map 400 AG extraoral scanner provided the highest accuracy, making it preferable for cases demanding exceptional precision. Select intraoral scanners carefully based on the specific clinical scenario.
Keywords
