Trueness and Precision of Coded Healing Abutments, Scan Bodies, and Conventional Implant Impressions at Different Implant Angulations: An In Vitro Study.

Authors

Maria Carrion, Pedro Diaz, Celia Tobar, Veronica Rodriguez, Seyed Ali Mosaddad, Jesus Pelaez, Maria J Suarez

Published in

The International journal of prosthodontics. Volume 0. Issue 0. Pages 1-25. Jun 19, 2026. Epub Jun 19, 2026.

Abstract

To compare the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions using coded healing abutments (CHA) and scan bodies (SB) with conventional impression technique (ANA), and to evaluate the influence of implant angulation in vitro.
Two mandibular models with parallel (M1) and angulated (M2) implants were fabricated. Sixty impressions (n=10 per subgroup) were obtained using CHA, SB, or ANA. Digital impressions were acquired with an intraoral scanner; conventional casts were digitized with a laboratory scanner. A coordinate measuring machine served as the reference. Linear inter-implant distance, angular deviations, and three-dimensional implant position were analyzed. Trueness was calculated as deviation from the reference, and precision as standard deviation. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance with Tukey post hoc tests, independent t tests for model comparisons, and Levene's test to assess variance homogeneity, with α=.05.
SB showed values closest to the reference for inter-implant distance. Digital techniques (SB and CHA) demonstrated comparable trueness (P>.05) and significantly higher precision than ANA for linear distance and angular deviations (P<.05). SB exhibited higher precision than CHA for anterior implant Y2 and Z2 coordinates (P=.001, P=.004). Implant angulation negatively affected ANA but did not significantly influence digital techniques.
SB and CHA provided comparable digital impression accuracy under controlled conditions. Conventional impressions demonstrated greater variability, particularly in angulated conFigurations.
Digital implant impressions using CHA may serve as a clinically acceptable alternative to SB, with greater reliability than conventional techniques in angulated implant scenarios.

PMID:
42319849
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 20 Jun 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.