OWN - KVM - Der Medizinverlag CI - Copyright KVM - Der Medizinverlag OCI - Copyright KVM - Der Medizinverlag TA - Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants JT - The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants IS - 1942-4434 (Electronic) IS - 0882-2786 (Print) IP - 1 VI - 37 PST - ppublish DP - 2022 PG - 67-75 LA - en TI - Accuracy of Different Complete-Arch Digital Scanning Techniques with a Combined Healing Abutment–Scan Body System LID - 10.11607/jomi.9209 [doi] FAU - Çakmak, Gülce AU - Çakmak G FAU - Yilmaz, Hakan AU - Yilmaz H FAU - Santos, Alejandro Treviño AU - Santos A FAU - Kökat, Ali Murat AU - Kökat A CN - OT - accuracy OT - implant impression OT - landmark OT - precision OT - splinting OT - trueness AB - Purpose: Investigate the effects of three different complete-arch digital implant scanning techniques used with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system on the accuracy (trueness and precision) and scan time. Materials and methods: A poly(methyl methacrylate) master model simulating an edentulous maxilla was fabricated with four parallelly inserted dental implants. A CHA-SB system was attached to each implant. The model surface was scanned using a structured blue light industrial extraoral scanner to achieve a reference model standard tessellation language file (MRM-STL). Three different scanning techniques-(1) conventional technique with unmodified master model, (2) scan body splinting technique using orthodontic elastic ligatures and plastic splint materials, and (3) land-marking technique using pyramid-shaped glass-ceramic markers-were performed. Fourteen consecutive digital scans were made by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) for each technique, converted to an STL file, and superimposed on the MRM-STL. Trueness and precision were calculated for each technique. The scan time was also recorded. The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) tests (α = .05). Results: Effects of different scanning techniques on the trueness (distance and angular deviations; P < .001) and scan time (P = .002) were statistically significant. For precision, different scanning techniques had only a significant effect on the distance deviation (P < .001). Conclusion: Regarding trueness and precision, none of the scanning techniques was superior to others. The scan body splinting technique led to significantly less scan time. AID - 2817751