Statement Of Problem: The accuracy of impressions for implant-supported prostheses is essential to ensure a passive fit of the definitive prosthesis. Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have been developed as an alternative to complete-arch implant-supported restorations; however, whether they are sufficiently accurate when more than 3 nonaligned implants are involved is unclear.
Purpose: The purpose of this pilot clinical study was to determine whether the fit of complete-arch zirconia implant-supported frameworks processed on a cast obtained with an IOS and adjusted with an auxiliary device is equivalent to a prosthesis obtained from an elastomeric impression.
Purpose: To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials.
Materials And Methods: Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans.
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two closed-tray transfer copings for implant impressions (a new design vs. an old design) in two different lengths (short and long).
Material And Methods: Four groups of transfer copings (NS - new short, NL - new long, OS - old short and OL - old long) were tested.