Evaluation of the influence of the impression technique, scanning direction and type of scanner on the accuracy of the final model


  • Diogo Cabecinha Viegas Lisbon Dental School, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6545-7875
  • João Tiago Mourão Department of Fixed Prosthodontics and Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dental Medicine, Lisbon University (FMDUL), Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Joao Carlos Roque Department of Fixed Prosthodontics and Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dental Medicine, Lisbon University (FMDUL), Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Hilton Riquieri School of Dental Medicine, Lisbon University (FMDUL), Lisbon, Portugal.
  • João Fernandes School of Dental Medicine, Lisbon University (FMDUL), Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Fernando Vasconcelos Arrobas Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil.
  • Pedro Jacy Santos Diamantino Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil.
  • Guilherme S. F. Anzaloni Saavedra Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil.




Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of the type of scanner and scanning direction on the accuracy of the final cast. Material and Methods: A partial master cast was used as a reference. A total of 128 scans were obtained and divided into two groups: the conventional method and the digital method. The digital group was divided into three groups: TRIOS 3, Omnicam and CS 3600. Each of these groups was subdivided according to the scanning direction, and each scan was overlaid on the digital reference cast to measure the trueness and precision of the procedures. Results: The overall precision values for the type of impression were 59.89 ± 13.08 mm for conventional and 13.42 ± 4.28 mm for digital; the values for trueness were 49.37 ± 19.13 mm for conventional and 53.53 ± 4.97 mm for digital; the scanning direction trueness values were 53.05 ± 4.36 mm for continuous and 54.03 ± 5.52 mm for segmented; and the precision values were 14.18 ± 4.67 mm for continuous and 12.67 ± 3.75 mm for segmented (p> 0.05). For the scanner type, the trueness values were 50.06 ± 2.65 mm for Trios 3, 57.45 ± 4.63 mm for Omnicam, and 52.57 ± 4.65 mm for Carestream; and those for precision were 11.7 ± 2.07 mm for Trios 3, 10.09 ± 2.24 mm for Omnicam, and 18.49 ± 2.42 mm for Carestream (p <0.05). Conclusions: The digital impression method is the most favorable method regarding precision; in terms of trueness, there are no differences between the types of impressions.


Conventional impression; Intra oral impression; Accuracy; Trueness.

Author Biography

Diogo Cabecinha Viegas, Lisbon Dental School, Portugal

Assistant Professor Fixed Prosthodontics


Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, Kim HY, Lee DH, Kim JH. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J Prosthodont Res. 2019 Jan; 63(1):25-30. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.002.

Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow-the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Dec; 17(9):2119-25. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-0923-5.

Craddock MR, Windhorn RJ (2011) Is the US Army Dental Corpsready for the digital impression? US Army Med Dep J Jan–Mar:38–41

Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb; 109(2):121-128. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1.

Perakis N, Belser U, Magne P. Final impressions: a review of material properties and description of a current technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2004; 24:109-117.

Persson A, Odén A, Andersson M, Sand-borgh-Englund G. Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 2009; 25:929-936. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100.

Wettstein F, Sailer I, Roos M, Hämmerle C. Clinical study of the internal gaps of zirconia and metal frameworks for fixed partial dentures. Eur J Oral Sci 2008; 116:272-293. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00527.x

Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan; 27(1): 35-41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527.

Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015 Jan; 46(1):9-17. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a32244.

The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2017, 177(55):1–105. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.12.001.

Christensen GJ: Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am DentAssoc 2009; 140:1301-1304. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054.

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 Jun; 25(4):282-287. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12410.

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. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Apr; 119(4):574-579.

doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.002.

Yuzbasioglu E1, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jan; 30 14:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10.

Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral s: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod. 2016 Jan; 46(1):3-12. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3.

Watanabe-Kanno GA, Abrão J, Miasiro Junior H, Sánchez-Ayala A, Lagravère MO. Reproducibility, reliability and validity of measurements obtained from Cecile 3 digital models. Braz Oral Res 2009; 23:288-95. doi: 10.1590/s1806-8324200900030011

Al Mortadi N, Eggbeer D, Lewis J, Williams RJ. CAD/CAM applications in the manufacture of dental appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142:727-733. doi: 10.10.2016/j.ajodo.2012.04.023.

Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Feb; 119(2):225-232. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002.

Renne W, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital s: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul; 118(1):36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024.

Chun J, Tahk JH, Chun Y, Park J, Kim M. Analysis on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: The effects of mandibular anterior interdental space. Appl Sci. 2017, 7(7):719. doi:10.3390/app7070719.

Sottomayor PM, Moscardó AP, Camps I. Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral s in complete arch impressions. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10(4):361–366. doi:10.4317/jced.54670.

Carrotte P, Winstanley R, Green J. A study of the quality of impressions for anterior crowns received at a commercial laboratory. Br Dent J 1993; 174: 235-240. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808162.

Millstein P. Determining the accuracy of gypsum casts made from type IV dental stone. J Oral Rehabi 1992; 19:239-243. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1992.tb01098.x.

Samet N, Shohat M, Livny A, Weiss E. A clinical evaluation of fixed partial denture impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94:112-117. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.002.

Amin WM, Al-Ali MH, Al Tarawneh SK, Taha ST, Saleh MW, Ereifij N. The effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy and surface quality of impression materials and gypsum casts. J Clin Med Res 2009; 1:81-89. doi: 10.4021/jocmr2009.04.1235.

Chen C, Anusavice AJ. Impression materials: Phillips’ science of dental materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2012:239-42.

Revised American Dental Association Specification No. 19 for non-aqueous, elastomeric dental impression materials. J Amer Dent Assoc 1977; 94:733-41.

Ragain JC, Grosko ML, Raj M, Ryan TN, Johnston WM. Detail reproduction, contact angles, and die hardness of elastomeric impression and gypsum die material combinations. Int J Prosthodont. 2000 May-Jun; 13(3):214-20.

International Organization for Standardization. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results e Part 1: General principles and definitions (ISO 5725e1:1994). Berlin: Beuth Verlag GmbH; 1997.

Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24(4):313–321. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218.

Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mörmann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent. 2015; 18(2):101–129.

Martin CB, Chalmers EV, McIntyre GT, Cochrane H, Mossey PA. Orthodontic scanners: what's available? J Orthod. 2015; 42(2):136–143. doi: 10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001.

Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4.

Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral s compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38(4):429–434. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw033.

Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38(4):422–428. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjv077.

Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont 2016 Aug 2. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527.

Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116 (2): 184–190.

Yang X, Lv P, Liu Y, Si W, Feng H. Accuracy of Digital Impressions and Fitness of Single Crowns Based on Digital Impressions. Materials (Basel). 2015 Jun 29; 8(7):3945-3957. doi: 10.3390/ma8073945.

Rudolph H, et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 Jan-Feb; 24(1):85-94. doi: 10.1590/1678-775720150266.

Lee JJ, Jeong ID, Park JY, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim WC. Accuracy of single-pilares digital cast obtained using intraoral and cast s. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Feb; 117(2):253-259. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.021.

Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Mar; 115(3):313-20. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011.

Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep; 20(7):1495-1504. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y.

Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video : An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jun; 115(6):755-759. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007.

Carbajal Mejía JB, Wakabayashi K, Nakamura T, Yatani H. Influence of pilares tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Sep; 118(3):392-399. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.021.

Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan; 24(1):111-115. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x.

Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep; 17(7):1759-1764. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4.

Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Apr; 113(4):310-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.027.

Ali AO. Accuracy of digital impressions achieved from five different digital impression systems. Dentistry. 2015; 5(5):1-6. doi:10.4172/2161-1122.1000300.

Mehl A, Ender A, Mörmann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent. 2009; 12(1):11-28.

Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardó A, Camps I. Correction: Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions. PLoS One. 2018 Dec 20;13(12). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209883.






Clinical or Laboratorial Research Manuscript