241241 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2024 December; 57(4): 241–247 Original article Accuracy of intraoral scanners based on jaw curve and inter- implant distance Hasan Khiraldeen Mohialdeen1, Mohammed A. Abdulla1, Ammar Kh. Al-Noori1, Ashraf Measar Mohamad2 1Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq 2Department of Prosthodontics, Al-Noor specialized center, Nineveh health directorate, Mosul, Iraq ABSTRACT Background: In digital dentistry, the intraoral scanner (IOS) is the primary data-collecting device. The data must be accurate to prevent undesirable stresses and technological difficulties resulting from prosthetic misfits. The span length of restorations influences the accuracy of IOS impressions. Purpose: This research aimed to compare the accuracy of virtual models scanned by different IOSs to determine whether jaw curvature and inter-implant distance affect accuracy. Methods: Four mandibular edentulous models were prepared by replacing the site of the missing tooth with an implant. The prepared holes were drilled at 7mm, 14mm, 21mm, and 28mm. Five scans for each model were taken with a desktop laboratory scanner as a reference model and with Trios3Shape and 3Disc Heron IOSs to evaluate trueness and precision (T&P). The scans were saved as standard triangulation language files and statistically analyzed at a level of significance (P ≤ 0.05). Results: There was a significant difference between the IOSs in inter-implant distances (P < 0.05). The greatest distortion was reported in the 21mm and 28mm groups for both scanners (P ≤ 0.05), while the lowest distortion was observed in the 7mm and 14mm groups for the Trios3Shape scanner. Conclusion: Jaw curvature and inter-implant distance impacted the accuracy of the IOS. Distortion and reduced reproducibility of T&P increased with jaw curve and inter-implant distance. The Trios3Shape IOS showed maximum accuracy at 7mm and 14mm inter-implant distances, while the 3Disc Heron IOS produced significant distortion of trueness at 21mm and 28mm inter-implant distances. Keywords: implant; intraoral scanners; jaw curve; precision; trueness Article history: Received 19 August 2023; Revised 19 December 2023; Accepted 18 January 2024; Published 1 December 2024 Correspondence: Mohammed A. Abdulla, Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, Mosul, Iraq. Email: mohammedaa2006@uomosul.edu.iq INTRODUCTION The wide use of digital technology in dental practices, especially in dental prosthodontics, has led to the gradual replacement of conventional impression techniques with digital dental technology.1 An essential step in the prosthetic workflow is an accurate impression. Data collection must be precise to prevent undesirable stresses and technological difficulties resulting from prosthetic misfits. To avoid active stress on implants, a passive fit of prosthetics is essential. Some research studies have reported that misfits can range from 22 to 100μm.2 Therefore, accurate digital data collection is required for the passive fit of implant- supported prostheses in the digital workflow; otherwise, active force on the implant system can result in biological and prosthetic failures.3 In the mid-1980s, intraoral scanners (IOSs) were introduced in dentistry as tools for data collection in digital dentistry. Similar to conventional intraoral impressions, IOSs create a mirror image of oral structures in the form of three-dimensional (3D) virtual models, eliminating the need for conventional impressions and physical model fabrication. Digital implant impression images can be produced using either direct or indirect digitization.4–12 A scan body implant (SBI) and an IOS collaborate in the direct method of implant digital impressions. The dental implant analog is attached to the SBI, which is then scanned. The image of the implant SBI is imported into CAD software, where it serves as a transfer tool to combine the dental implant intraorally with the virtual location of the implant within the digitizing program, and the digital image is superimposed.13,14 Copyright © 2024 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241–247 mailto:mohammedaa2006@uomosul.edu.iq https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241-247 242 Mohialdeen et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2024 December; 57(4): 241–247 Superimposition is often achieved by matching a reference scan model acquired by scanning the model in a desktop scanner as a reference mesh and then superimposing the meshes (virtual models) from the digital scan test groups onto the resultant standard triangulation language (STL) file. Based on the virtual implant’s 3D position, scanned abutments enable dental professionals to design and complete the final implant-supported prosthesis without the use of an impression or a stone cast. The impression or final gypsum cast is scanned using a desktop scanner as the indirect method of the digital impression procedure to create a digital image.15–18 Several researchers reported greater accuracy, higher patient satisfaction, and less time consumption using digital implant impressions, while other studies showed superior results with the conventional implant impression method compared to the digital impression method.10,12 The shape and margin of tooth preparation, the number of teeth or implants scanned, the curve of the jaw, the span of the edentulous area, moisture in the scanned area, the presence of blood or saliva, the effectiveness of scanning systems, patient movement, and the operator’s skill are all factors that affect the accuracy of scanned models.9,17,19,20 The accuracy of scanned models is significantly influenced by the span length of the edentulous area. Numerous studies on digital impression technology have reported that the accuracy of scanned data increases with shorter span lengths of implant-supported prostheses, whereas longer spans reveal minimal accuracy.17,19 However, there has been little emphasis on the effect of the length of the edentulous span, curvature of the jaw, and inter-implant distance on the accuracy of IOSs. Accuracy is frequently referred to as trueness and precision (T&P), according to the International Organization for Standardization. Trueness is defined as “the proximity between the test object and the reference object” and precision is defined as “the variability of repeated measurements of the object.”21 To provide a trustworthy and reproducible scan image, the ideal IOS equipment should possess outstanding T&P.22 The null hypothesis was that there are no differences in T&P when using a desktop scanner and IOSs and that jaw curvature with different inter- implant distances does not affect the accuracy of virtual implants scanned by different IOSs. The objective of the current study was to assess and compare the accuracy of virtual models scanned by two IOSs to determine whether jaw curvature and inter-implant distance affect accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four plastic mandibular fully edentulous standard models were used, and an experimental workflow is illustrated in Figure 1. The models were prepared using a one-piece implant (IMPLANT SYSTEM KOS®, Beograd, Serbia) to simulate an implant-supported fixed prosthesis as follows: Model 1: Dental implant installation at the site of the mandibular left central incisor (31) and mandibular canine (33). Model 2: Dental implant installation at the site of the left mandibular central incisor (31) and mandibular first premolar (34). Model 3: Dental implant installation at the site of the left mandibular central incisor (31), mandibular canine (33), and mandibular first molar (36). Model 4: Dental implant installation at the site of the left mandibular central incisor (31), mandibular first premolar (34), and mandibular second molar (37). The centers of each of the parallel cylindrical holes, which were spaced 7mm apart, were prepared for implant installation. Using a digital vernier caliper, the consistent distance between the centers of the two implants was confirmed to be 7mm. The prepared holes in models 1, 2, 3, and 4 were drilled at 7mm, 14mm, 21mm, and 28mm for the left mandibular central incisor (31), canine (33), first premolar (34), first molar (36), and second molar (37), respectively. Each model was scanned using a desktop blue light laboratory scanner (E1; 3Shape, Denmark) to create a digital reference dataset. For models 1, 2, 3, and 4, this reference dataset was then saved in STL file format. The four test models were scanned using two IOSs: TRIOS™ (3Shape, Denmark) and 3DISC Heron™ (HERON SCAN 3.1, IOS Intraoral Color Impression Figure 1. An experimental workflow. Copyright © 2024 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241–247 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241-247 243Mohialdeen et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2024 December; 57(4): 241–247 Scanner, USA). Both scanners operate based on confocal microscopy principles. For scanning the lower dental arch, the manufacturer recommends three swipes—occlusal, buccal, and lingual—to ensure complete data coverage of all necessary surfaces. The scanning was performed by the same person, following the manufacturer’s instructions. The prepared model was scanned five times using a desktop scanner and two IOSs to evaluate the accuracy of each scanned model by examining both T&P. Each scanner was calibrated before each scanning session according to the recommended protocol. Each model was trimmed and processed using a mesh mixer to limit the measurement area. Primary scanning was performed first, and target areas were marked in green for rescanning to obtain high- definition scans and detect any missed or unclear spots for adaptive scanning. A color-coded map illustrated the differences between the desktop scanner (the reference model) and the IOS (the tested model). Green and red colors denote surfaces that are precisely aligned, while blue indicates that the test model surface was negatively positioned relative to the reference model (Figure 2). The scanned models were superimposed to examine deviations. Irrelevant areas beyond the field of interest were eliminated to ensure precise superimposition. A repeated best-fit algorithm was used to individually align the STL datasets of the scanned models with the reference dataset for trueness measurement. Part alignment was performed to achieve perfect implant matching based on the implant’s constructed plane. After aligning the surfaces, the absolute volumetric deviations between the reference and the tested model were calculated. For precision measurements, five scans were superimposed on each other within each scanning pathway (n = 10). Superimposition of the reference and test models was performed using 3D analysis (Geomagic® Control™ software, USA). The virtual reference model STL file was imported into the program and used as the reference data. The STL file of the virtual model from the sample group was imported as the measured data. Only selected points in the designated area were compared in 3D to eliminate variations outside the area of interest, which is clinically significant. A color map with 20 color components depicting visual deviation was created (Figure 3). After generating the report, the statistical analysis data and color map information were exported (Figure 3). The root mean square error (RMSE) values were calculated to measure the deviation between the reference model and scan files, assessing trueness. The 3D dataset of scan files within each group was analyzed for RMSE. Results were statistically analyzed using SPSS software version 19 (IBM, Chicago, USA). Data were Figure 2. Virtual scanned models. The green area represents the target area for best-fit alignment and 3D comparison with the measured model in each group, where the distance between the centers of the two implants is consistent at 7 mm. A. Model 1 with a 7mm inter-implant distance. B. Model 2 with a 14mm inter-implant distance. C. Model 3 with a 21mm inter-implant distance. D. Model 4 with a 28mm inter-implant distance. Copyright © 2024 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241–247 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241-247 244 Mohialdeen et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2024 December; 57(4): 241–247 Figure 3. 3D analysis program report. A. Model 1. B. Model 2. C. Model 3. D. Model 4. Superimposition of the scanned models obtained from Trios3Shape and 3Disc IOS with the virtual reference model. Table 1. Mean (Min, Max) in micrometer (μm) of precision and trueness for the Trios3Shape and 3Disc Heron Intraoral scanners Scanner Type Model Mean Minimum Maximum N 3Shape Group Precision MODEL1 0.025 0.0013 0.0590 5 MODEL2 0.037 0.0322 0.0393 5 MODEL3 0.039 0.0346 0.0443 5 MODEL4 0.019 0.0008 0.0358 5 Trueness MODEL1 0.011 0.0110 0.0210 5 MODEL2 0.021 0.0101 0.0310 5 MODEL3 0.041 0.0310 0.0500 5 MODEL4 0.021 0.0110 0.0300 5 3Disc Group Precision MODEL1 0.029 0.0117 0.0527 5 MODEL2 0.019 0.0021 0.0308 5 MODEL3 0.023 0.0046 0.0208 5 MODEL4 0.032 0.0245 0.0509 5 Trueness MODEL1 0.013 0.0110 0.0140 5 MODEL2 0.012 0.0100 0.0140 5 MODEL3 0.013 0.0120 0.0150 5 MODEL4 0.058 0.0450 0.0600 5 N = Number of samples Table 2. Shapiro-Wilk test for the Trios3Shape and 3Disc Heron intraoral scanners Model Scanner Tests of Normality Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. MODEL1 3Shape Group .938 5 .652 3Disc Group .584 5 .000* MODEL2 3Shape Group .778 5 .053 3Disc Group .757 5 .034* MODEL3 3Shape Group .948 5 .722 3Disc Group .979 5 .928 MODEL4 3Shape Group .883 5 .324 3Disc Group .909 5 .464 Statistically significant differences among the scanners (P ≤ 0.05) Copyright © 2024 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241–247 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241-247 245Mohialdeen et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2024 December; 57(4): 241–247 checked for normality of distribution and homogeneity of variance using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Pairwise comparisons were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test, and the independent samples t-test was used to detect differences in trueness and precision between different IOSs. RESULTS The average deviation from the reference scanned models in the 3D comparison was assessed between the reference models obtained by the desktop scanning device and those obtained using the Trios3Shape and 3Disc Heron IOSs. The sample size (n = 15) included approximately five samples for each scanned model. The analyzed data on T&P among inter-implant distance values for the two IOSs are listed in Table 1. The T&P of the scanned models showed significant differences among the IOSs. The analyzed data, including the median trueness, mean precision, and P values for the interaction between scanners, are listed in Table 2. For the 3Disc IOS, the trueness of Model 1 and Model 2 at 14mm and 21mm inter-implant distances, respectively, revealed significant differences (P ≤ 0.05). There was no significant difference in inter-implant distances for Model 1, Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4 with the Trios3Shape IOS (P > 0.05) (see Table 2). When the two IOSs, Trios3Shape and 3Disc Heron, were examined for the same scanned model, there was no significant difference between the IOSs for model 1 at a 7mm inter-implant distance (P > 0.05) (see Table 3). However, significant differences were observed for models 2, 3, and 4 (see Tables 3 and 4). The top outcomes for T&P, represented by visual color maps from each device, are shown in Figure 4. Table 3. Independent-samples Mann-Whitney U test for models 1 and 2 Model Scanner N P-value MODEL1 3Shape Group 3Disc Group 5 5 .151 MODEL2 3Shape Group 3Disc Group 5 5 .008* N = number of samples; statistically significant differences among the scanners (P ≤ 0.05) Table 4. Independent samples t-test for models 3 and 4 Model Scanner t df P-value MODEL3 3Shape Group 8.272 8 .000*3Disc Group MODEL4 3Shape Group -2.102 8 .005*3Disc Group Statistically significant differences among the scanners (P ≤ 0.05) Figure 4. Visual color map representation. Copyright © 2024 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241–247 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241-247 246 Mohialdeen et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2024 December; 57(4): 241–247 DISCUSSION The current study was designed to evaluate whether jaw curvature and inter-implant distance affect the accuracy of 3D models produced by two IOSs at various inter- implant distances. Based on the study’s findings, the null hypothesis—that there are no significant accuracy differences between the two IOSs—was partially rejected. Additionally, the hypothesis that the distance between implants and jaw curvature does not affect accuracy was rejected. Achieving a well-fitting prosthesis is challenging but essential to prevent problems and ensure the durability of the prosthetic construction. A prosthesis made with an IOS is generally more accurate than one made with traditional cast frames. The accuracy of IOSs is affected by the amount of edentulous space between implants.24,25 For digital impressions, many studies have reported that shorter spans of implant-supported prostheses are associated with greater accuracy in observed intraoral scan data, whereas longer spans show lower accuracy.23,24 The accuracy of scanning a short span for an implant-supported prosthesis is reportedly comparable to the conventional impression technique, while digital scanning tends to produce less accurate results for longer spans.8,23–26 Every IOS has a scan protocol specified in the manufacturer’s instructions, but it often does not indicate where to start the scan, which can be problematic, especially when scanning both quadrants. The accuracy may vary between the areas where the scan begins and ends, as the stitching method can introduce cumulative errors as the scan progresses from the start to the proximal region.27 The trueness error in this study falls within the permitted range for passive fitting, except for the 28mm scan model, where the error exceeds 22μm. For trueness, a mismatch of at least 22μm is considered significant.2,28 When comparing trueness among IOSs, significant statistical differences were observed between the 3Disc and 3Shape IOS groups for models 1 and 2. However, the difference in errors was limited to 20μm. Precision data showed increased inaccuracy with longer edentulous spans. In this investigation, models 3 and 4, which had larger inter-implant distances, particularly with the 3Shape IOS, exhibited increased precision errors. The inaccuracy grew with the 21mm and 28mm increases in distance. These findings are consistent with other research.17,25 Although the authors used inter-implant distances of 21mm and 28mm—considered long in clinical practice— they did so to compare the effects of different edentulous span lengths between the chosen implants. One factor influencing scanning error could be the jaw curve from the anterior to the posterior region.9,19,20 The authors suggested measuring the error caused by the curved span. Consequently, implants were placed from the anterior to the lower posterior region, where the arch is notably curved. This placement demonstrates the test objects’ translation inaccuracies compared to the reference object, which affects the outcome estimation and is likely due to the stitching procedure.25,29 The size of the scanner’s tip is a crucial factor in determining accuracy in clinical practice, particularly for target objects placed in confined locations, such as the distal part of the jaw. A smaller scanner head is more likely to maintain a clear line of sight for light throughout the scanning process. However, a larger scanner head generally improves T&P compared to a smaller head. This is because a larger head requires fewer images to be stitched together, reducing the potential for errors associated with stitching more images, as is necessary with a smaller head.30,31 The alignment of data, or superimposition of test and reference models, is another crucial aspect of measuring accuracy. Correct model alignment reveals translation inaccuracies between the test and reference objects, which affects the software’s result estimation. Since local best-fit alignment and best-fit alignment methods produced fewer alignment errors,28 it is suggested to use a small portion of the scanned models for accurate alignment. This approach is supported by research studies that focused on the area of interest after trimming the scanned data to enhance the accuracy of model alignment.20,32,33 Since this study is an in vitro design, the data may differ from those obtained in actual patient scenarios, where intraoral scanning is influenced by complex factors, such as tongue movement, ambient temperature, humidity, and lighting. Therefore, further research is needed to examine various IOSs and scan bodies, followed by comparable in vivo experiments. In conclusion, jaw curvature and inter-implant distance impacted the accuracy of the IOS. Distortion and reduced reproducibility of T&P increased with the jaw curve from the anterior to the posterior regions and with greater distances between implants. The Trios3Shape IOS demonstrated the highest accuracy, while the 3Disc Heron IOS produced significant distortion in trueness. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors express their gratitude to the University of Mosul, and the College of Dentistry for their assistance, availability of the laboratories, and contributions of resources that facilitated the development of the study. REFERENCES 1. Kim M, Kim J, Mai H-N, Kwon T-Y, Choi Y-D, Lee C-H, Lee D-H. Comparative clinical study of the marginal discrepancy of fixed dental prosthesis fabricated by the milling-sintering method using a presintered alloy. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019; 11(5): 280–5. 2. Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: A review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14(1): 16–23. 3. Floriani F, Lopes GC, Cabrera A, Duarte W, Zoidis P, Oliveira D, Rocha MG. Linear accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions of implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review Copyright © 2024 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241–247 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241-247 247Mohialdeen et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2024 December; 57(4): 241–247 and meta-analysis. Eur J Dent. 2023; 17(4): 964–73. 4. Kuroda S, Yotsuya M, Sato T, Hisanaga R, Nomoto S, Sekine H. The effect of scanning pathways on trueness and precision in full-arch optical impression. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1): 390. 5. Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: A systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017; 26(6): 929–35. 6. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28(11): 1360–7. 7. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: A three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32(4): 792–9. 8. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen C, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27(4): 465–72. 9. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26(3): 101–21. 10. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three- dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018; 2018: 3761750. 11. Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, Pigozzo MN, Laganá DC, Sesma N. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119(2): 214–9. 12. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(5): 829. 13. Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28(4): e902–8. 14. Pan S, Guo D, Zhou Y, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF, Mühlemann S. Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model-free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double-blind self-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30(7): 617–26. 15. Güth J-F, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17(4): 1201–8. 16. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: A comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31(6): 577–9. 17. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17(1): 149. 18. Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018; 69: 110–8. 19. Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Suzuki T, Minakuchi S. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62(3): 324–9. 20. Jivanescu A, Rotar P, Hategan S, Pricop C, Rus R, Goguta L. Clinical factors influence the trueness of intra-oral scanning. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2019; 27(1): 51–5. 21. ISO 5725-1:2023 - Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 1: General principles and definitions. 2nd ed. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2023. 22. Nulty AB. A comparison of full arch trueness and precision of nine intra-oral digital scanners and four lab digital scanners. Dent J. 2021; 9(7): 75. 23. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1): 101. 24. Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29(S16): 374–92. 25. Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C. Effects of inter- implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021; 13(2): 107–16. 26. Park G-H, Son K, Lee K-B. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121(5): 803–10. 27. Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20(1): 263. 28. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 2017; 78(6): 466–71. 29. O’Toole S, Osnes C, Bartlett D, Keeling A. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment. Dent Mater. 2019; 35(3): 495–500. 30. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62(3): 347–52. 31. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Peampring C, Sanohkan S. Confocal 3d optical intraoral scanners and comparison of image capturing accuracy. Comput Mater Contin. 2020; 66(1): 303–14. 32. Utomo H, Ruth MSMA, Wangsa LG, Salazar-Gamarra RE, Dib LL. Simple smartphone applications for superimposing 3D imagery in forensic dentistry. Dent J. 2020; 53(1): 50–6. 33. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Sanohkan S. Comparison of accuracy of current ten intraoral scanners. Grassia V, editor. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 2021: 2673040. Copyright © 2024 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241–247 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v57.i4.p241-247