# Evaluating the Accuracy of Two Intraoral Scanning Systems in Reproducing Implant Positions for Prosthetic Fabrication: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study

## TL;DR

This study compares two intraoral scanning systems to see which one more accurately captures implant positions for dental prosthetics.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of the Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona systems using clinical measurements as a reference.

## Key findings

- The Medit i700 showed higher accuracy with ICC = 1.00 and minimal bias in replicating distances from scan bodies to adjacent teeth.
- Dentsply Sirona had greater variability in measurements, with a wider range of bias limits compared to the Medit i700.
- Both systems showed high ICC values for intercuspal distances, indicating good reproducibility in that aspect.

## Abstract

Background: The integration of digital technologies in implant dentistry has enhanced the precision of prosthetic fabrications by minimizing errors associated with traditional impression methods. However, variations in the accuracy of intraoral scanning systems can impact the fit and function of implant-supported prostheses. This study compared the accuracy of the Medit i700 (Medit Corp, Seoul, Korea) and Dentsply Sirona intraoral scanning systems in replicating implant positions, using direct intraoral measurements as the reference standard.

Methods: Six patients with 10 implant sites were included. Inclusion criteria involved stable implants with adjacent natural teeth. Direct intraoral distances from scan bodies to adjacent teeth were measured using a digital caliper. Digital scans were obtained for every site with both the Medit i700 and Dentsply Sirona (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) intraoral scanning systems, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed models were fabricated for measurement. To assess the accuracy of reproducibility in models, intercuspal distances and distances between the scan bodies and the nearest portion of adjacent teeth were measured. Accuracy was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.

Results: For distances from scan bodies to adjacent teeth, the mean intraoral distance was 8.62 ± 4.28 mm. Medit i700 measurements (8.60 ± 4.25 mm) showed ICC = 1.00 and bias = 0.02 mm (limits: -0.10 to 0.14 mm). Dentsply Sirona (8.56 ± 4.34 mm) had ICC = 0.999 and bias = 0.05 mm (limits: -0.32 to 0.43 mm), indicating greater variability. For intercuspal distances, measurements were similar (Medit: 5.95 ± 0.77 mm; Sirona: 5.93 ± 0.76 mm; ICC = 0.999).

Conclusion: The Medit i700 demonstrated superior accuracy over the Dentsply Sirona system, due to its advanced features and recent manufacturing. This supports its preference for precise implant prosthetics.