Materials and Techniques for Splinting Scan Bodies: A Scoping Review

TL;DR

This review explores materials and techniques to improve the accuracy of digital dental implant scans, especially in complex cases.

Contribution

The study provides a comprehensive synthesis of splinting and stabilization strategies for digital implant impressions.

Findings

Rigid or geometrically enriched devices improve trueness and precision in digital implant scans.

Modified scan bodies and calibrated auxiliary devices show promise in enhancing scanning accuracy.

Flexible splints may reduce accuracy and outcomes depend on the scanner used.

Abstract

Background: Digital implant impressions using intraoral scanners are increasingly adopted; however, their accuracy remains challenging in complete-arch and extended edentulous scenarios due to limited anatomical reference points and cumulative stitching errors. Various splinting techniques, scan-body modifications, and auxiliary geometric devices have been proposed to enhance digital accuracy, yet the available evidence is highly heterogeneous and lacks comprehensive synthesis. Methods: This scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases identified studies evaluating materials, designs, or techniques intended to splint, stabilize, or geometrically augment intraoral scan bodies in digital implant workflows. In vitro, clinical, and mixed-design studies were included. Data were extracted descriptively and synthesized narratively. Results: Seventy-three studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were in vitro investigations focused on fully edentulous arches. Splinting strategies included direct resin-based connections, rigid or semi-rigid auxiliary geometric devices, modified scan bodies with extensional geometries, and artificial landmarks. Most studies reported improved trueness, precision, or scanning efficiency when rigid or geometrically enriched devices were used, particularly in long-span or angulated implant configurations. However, flexible or optically interfering splints occasionally reduced accuracy, and outcomes were strongly scanner-dependent. Conclusions: Splinting and auxiliary scanning strategies generally enhance the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions, especially when rigid, well-engineered, or geometrically complex designs are employed. Modified scan bodies and calibrated auxiliary devices appear particularly promising, while flexible splints may be counterproductive. Standardized protocols and further in vivo validation are required to optimize digital implant workflows.

Figures