Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions using different intraoral scan body (ISB) materials and intraoral scanners (IOSs).

Materials and methods: The mandibular dental cast of an edentulous patient with six tissue-level dental implants was used as the master cast. Two types of ISBs-polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and plasma-coated medical titanium-were used with five IOSs: TRIOS 4 (T4), Virtuo Vivo (VV), Medit i700 (Mi700), iTero 5D (i5D), and Primescan (PS). To assess accuracy, digital impressions (n &#61; 10) with each IOS and ISB were compared to two reference models obtained by digitizing the master cast with each ISB type using a desktop scanner (IScan4D LS3i) and importing the scan data into metrology software (Geomagic Control X). Root mean square (RMS) error was employed to evaluate overall deviation values (trueness), while precision was determined using the SD of RMS values. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Kruskal-Wallis test was used, followed by the pairwise comparison method with Bonferroni correction (α &#61; .05).

Results: An interaction between ISB material and IOS was found (P &#61; .001). Plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision compared to PEEK ISBs with T4 (P &#61; .001), Mi700 (P &#61; .001; P &#61; .004), and i5D (P &#61; .001). Conversely, VV exhibited higher trueness and precision values with PEEK ISBs (P &#61; .005; P &#61; .003). PS provided the highest trueness and precision regardless of the ISB material (P &#61; .912). T4 showed the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.

Conclusions: Except for PS, all IOSs showed significant differences between ISB materials. PS demonstrated the highest accuracy with both ISB materials, whereas T4 had the lowest accuracy for PEEK ISBs, and VV showed the lowest accuracy for plasma-coated medical titanium ISBs.