Orejas Pérez, JaimeGiménez González, BeatrizOrtiz Collado, IgnacioThuissard Vasallo, Israel JohnSantamaría Laorden, Andrés2023-06-052023-06-052022Orejas-Pérez, J., Giménez-González, B., Ortiz-Collado, I., Thuissard, I. J., & Santamaría-Laorden, A. (2022). In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 4300. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph190743001660-4601http://hdl.handle.net/11268/12110Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student’s t-test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.engAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Implantación dentalImpresión tridimensionalMateriales biocompatiblesjournal article10.3390/ijerph19074300open accessOdontologíaTecnología médica