Walaa Magdy Ahmed

Purpose To compare the accuracy of digitizing conventional impressions to intraoral surface scans for all‐on‐four treatment in the maxillary arch. Materials and methods An edentulous maxillary arch model with four implants placed in an all‐on‐four design was fabricated. Intraoral surface scans ( n = 10) were obtained using an intraoral scanner after scan body insertion. For conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model, implant copings were inserted into the implant fixation for implant level, opened tray impressions ( n = 10). The model and conventional impressions were digitized to obtain digital files. A reference file was created using a laboratory‐scanned conventional standard tessellation language (STL) file with analog to scan the body using exocad software. STL datasets from the two digital and conventional impression groups were superimposed with reference files to assess the 3D deviations. Two‐way ANOVA and paired‐samples t ‐test was performed to assess the difference in trueness and examine the effects of impression technique and implant angulation on the deviation amount. Results No significant differences were found between the conventional impression and intraoral surface scan groups F (1, 76) = 2.705, p = 0.104. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and digital straight implants and between conventional and digital tilted implants F (1, 76) = .041, p = 0.841. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and conventional tilted implants p = 0.07 and between digital straight and digital tilted implants p = 0.08. Conclusion Digital scans were more accurate than conventional impressions. The digital straight implants were more accurate than the conventional straight implants, and the digital tilted implants were more accurate than the conventional tilted implants, with higher accuracy for digital straight implants.