Limited studies have assessed the accuracy of noncalibrated implant scan body (ISB) systems for recording implant scans, reporting a reliable method for capturing implant positions. A recently introduced commercial noncalibrated ISB method is available, yet its accuracy remains unknown.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained using a noncalibrated ISB system and 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs).

A stone cast with 6 implant abutment analogs was selected. A laboratory scan was recorded (T710) to obtain the control file. Five groups were described depending on the IOS: Lumina, TRIOS5, Primescan, i700, and i900. Two subgroups were created based on the technique tested: standard (ISB subgroup) and noncalibrated (NC-ISB subgroup) ISBs (n=15). In the ISB subgroup, an ISB (AB-SR-01 IPD) was tightened into each implant abutment, and scans were captured with the IOSs tested. In the NC-ISB subgroup, a noncalibrated ISB (ScanlogiQ) was hand tightened into each implant abutment toward the center of the arch. Implant scans were recorded involving the pyramid geometry of the noncalibrated ISBs using the IOSs tested. Euclidean linear and angular calculations were obtained for the 6 implants. The measurements acquired in the control scan were used to measure scanning discrepancies with each experimental scan. Two-way ANOVA and the Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α=.05).

Linear trueness discrepancies were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant group×subgroup interaction (P<.001). The Lumina and i900 obtained the best linear trueness. The i700 and TRIOS5 had the highest mean linear discrepancy. The NC-ISB group had better linear trueness than the ISB group (P=.05). The Levene test revealed significant linear precision discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001). The Lumina and i900 had the best linear precision, while the i700 had the worst linear precision. The NC-ISB group showed better linear precision than the ISB group. Additionally, angular trueness discrepancies were revealed among the groups (P<.001), with a significant group×subgroup interaction (P<.001). The Lumina had the best angular trueness, while the i900 presented the worst angular trueness. The Levene test revealed significant angular precision discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001). The Primescan and Lumina had the best angular precision, while the i900 had the worst angular precision. Lastly, the NC-ISB group showed better angular precision than the ISB group.

The implant scanning technique and IOS influenced the trueness and precision of the complete arch implant scans.