ILLUSTRATIVE DATA VERSION — NOT FOR SUBMISSION Accuracy and Passive Fit of Digital versus Conventional Impression Techniques for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Comparative In Vitro Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54361/LJMR.20.2.82Keywords:
dental implants, full-arch prosthesis, digital impression, intraoral scanner, passive fit, trueness, precisionAbstract
Background: The passive fit of a definitive framework is a critical determinant of the long-term mechanical stability and biological health of a full-arch implant-supported prosthesis. Discrepancies at the implant–abutment or framework interface, even at the micron level, can generate residual stress within the prosthetic components and surrounding bone, potentially contributing to screw loosening, framework fracture, or marginal bone loss. As digital workflows increasingly replace conventional impression techniques in implant prosthodontics, it is important to establish whether intraoral scanning can reproducibly match or exceed the accuracy achieved with conventional splinted impressions across multiple-implant configurations. Materials and Methods: A standardized reference model incorporating six parallel implant analogues was used to simulate a full-arch edentulous arch. We performed ten illustrative repetitions for each impression technique (digital and conventional). We captured digital impressions with an intraoral scanner, while conventional impressions used a splinted open-tray technique with a rigid impression material. Result datasets/casts were superimposed onto the reference model to calculate root-mean-square (RMS) deviation, linear deviation, and angular deviation at each implant position. Passive fit was assessed via marginal microgap measurement at the framework–abutment interface using a one-screw test protocol. Results: In this illustrative dataset, digital impressions demonstrated lower RMS, linear, and angular deviations relative to the reference model compared with conventional impressions, suggesting a trend towards higher overall accuracy for the digital workflow. Conversely, the conventional impression group showed a small, statistically non-significant advantage in marginal microgap values, indicating a marginally tighter passive fit at the framework interface. No consistent pattern favouring one technique across all outcome measures was observed. Conclusion: The reported numerical results are illustrative only, intended to demonstrate the requested structured-abstract reporting format, and must not be interpreted as findings from an actual study.
Downloads
References
1. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2016;27(4):465–472.
2. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2013;109(2):121–128.
3. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:149.
4. Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: an evaluation of accuracy. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2018;119(4):574–579.
5. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2017;28(11):1360–1367.
6. Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2020;29(4):281–286.
7. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2014;29(4):836–845.
8. Gimenez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2015;17(Suppl 1):e54–e64.
9. Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners: a systematic review. European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2017;10(Suppl 1):101–120.
10. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015;26(6):715–719.
11. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, et al. Full-arch digital scanning systems performance for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of eight intraoral scanners. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2019;63(4):396–403.
12. Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021;125(3):470–478.
13. Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2019;122(6):543–549.
14. Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2016;116(2):184–190.
15. Pesce P, Nicolini P, Caponio VCA, et al. Accuracy of full-arch intraoral scans versus conventional impression: a systematic review with a meta-analysis and a proposal to standardise the analysis of the accuracy. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025;14(1):71. doi:10.3390/jcm14010071.
16. Papaspyridakos P, et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a retrospective analysis of 36 edentulous jaws. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2023;32(Suppl):e1–e10. [Bibliographic details require verification against the original publication.].
17. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725-1:2023. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—Part 1: General principles and definitions. Geneva: ISO; 2023.
18. Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Akulauskas M, et al. In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2021;32(12):1444–1454. [Bibliographic details require verification against the original publication.].
19. Assif D, Nissan J, Varsano I. Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 1999;14(6):885–888.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Libyan Journal of Medical Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Open Access Policy
Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR).is an open journal, therefore there are no fees required for downloading any publication from the journal website by authors, readers, and institution.
The journal applies the license of CC BY (a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license). This license allows authors to keep ownership f the copyright of their papers. But this license permits any user to download , print out, extract, reuse, archive, and distribute the article, so long as appropriate credit is given to the authors and the source of the work.
The license ensures that the article will be available as widely as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific archive.
Editorial Policy
The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for Libyan journal of medical Research (LJMR). It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editorial, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Any manuscript or substantial parts of it, submitted to the journal must not be under consideration by any other journal. In general, the manuscript should not have already been published in any journal or other citable form, although it may have been deposited on a preprint server. Authors are required to ensure that no material submitted as part of a manuscript infringes existing copyrights, or the rights of a third party.
Authorship Policy
The manuscript authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution and intellectual input to the research submitted to the journal, including design, performance, interpretation of the reported study, and writing the manuscript. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the manuscript but without intellectual input should only be recognized in the acknowledgements section of the manuscript. Also, one of the authors should be selected as the corresponding author to communicate with the journal and approve the final version of the manuscript for publication in the LJMR.
Peer-review Policy
- All the manuscripts submitted to LJMR will be subjected to the double-blinded peer-review process;
- The manuscript will be reviewed by two suitable experts in the respective subject area.
- Reports of all the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript.
- Editor-In-Chief will make the final decision, based on the reviewer’s comments.
- Editor-In-Chief can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions upon a manuscript, before making the final decision.
- Associate editor and review editors provide administrative support to maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.
- In case, authors challenge the editor’s negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to one more reviewer and the final decision will be made based upon his recommendations.
https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2413-6069
