Background
Methods
Search strategy
Search terms | Number of records returned |
---|---|
Free-text | |
Intraoral scanner AND scanbodies | 4 |
Intraoral scanner AND implants | 95 |
Intraoral scanner AND accuracy | 231 |
Intraoral scanner AND digital workflow | 71 |
Zirconia AND digital workflow | 52 |
Lithium disilicate AND digital workflow | 30 |
Results
References | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression type (stone cast accuracy) | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lee et al. [29] | Single posterior maxillary implant | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | iTero | PVS (aquasil) mono-closed tray | LAVA scan ST | Milled models from IOS scan exhibited SS more vertical displacement of implant analogue position compared to master model in coronal direction |
Koch et al. [30] | Single posterior maxillary implant | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | iTero | N/A | LAVA Scan ST (master model) | Variations in the milled models resulting from software and scanner error exhibited statistical significance Software, scanner, and milling error were shown to propagate through the digital workflow to the milled model |
Mühlemann et al. [22] | Single posterior implants | 3D surface | In vivo (n = 5) | iTero (57 μm) Trios (88 μm) Lava COS (176 μm) | Polyether mono closed metal tray (32 μm) | D103i (imetric 3D SA) | The conventional gypsum implant model had the highest accuracy of implant position compared to 3D printed and milled models from IOS scans |
Mangano et al. [23] | Single anterior maxillary implant | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (Tr = 22 μm/Pr = 15 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 15 μm/Pr = 11 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 28 μm/Pr = 30 μm) DWIO (Tr = 27 μm/Pr = 27 μm Emerald (Tr = 43 μm/Pr = 32 μm) | N/A | Freedom DOF | Trios3 and CS3600 were SS more accurate compared to other IOS Accuracy of IOS in complete-arch implants is NOT corelated to IOS resolution |
References | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression type (stone cast accuracy) | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lin et al. [64] | Partially dentate mandible with 2 implants and 4 different angulations (0,15,30 and 45 degrees) | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 4) | iTero | PVS (Aquasil) open tray, non-splinted | Cagenix | The amount of divergence between implants significantly affected the accuracy of the milled casts created digitally. The digital technique was more accurate when the implants diverged more. At 0 and 15 degrees of divergence, the digital method resulted in highly significantly less accurate definitive casts. At 30 and 45 degrees of divergence, however, the milled casts showed either no difference or marginal differences with casts created conventionally |
Mangano et al. [44] | Partially edentulous maxilla with 3 implants Full edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 2) | Trios 2 (71 μm) CS 3500 (47-63 μm) Zfx Intrascan 117-103 μm) Planscan (233-253 μm) | N/A | Iscan D104I (Imetric3D) | CS3500 most accurate IOS but no SS compared to TRIOS Refractory Index of PEEK is better than Titanium |
Flügge et al. [43] | Partially dentate mandible with 2 implants Partially dentate mandible with 5 implants (Kennedy 1) | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 2) | Trios iTero True Def | N/A | D250 | The precision of IOS decreases with longer distances between scanbodies, especially crossing the midline |
Fukazawa et al. [45] | Partially dentate mandible with 2 implants (short and long distance) | Distance | In vitro (n = 2) | Trios 2 (7 and 20 μm) Lava COS (27 μm and 80 μm) True Def (17 μm and 60 μm) Kavo ARCTICA (3 μm and 18 μm) | N/A | CMM UPMC 550-Sarat | Trios comparably accurate to Lab scanner and SS more accurate than the other IOS tested For longer distances, IOS accuracy decreases Deviation of up to 100 μm is acceptable |
Basaki et al. [21] | Partially dentate mandible with 4 implants (Kennedy 1) | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | iTero (116 μm) | PVS monophase with custom trays (56 μm) | D810 | PVS impressions were statistically more accurate than IOS Implant angulation did not affect IOS accuracy. Milled 3D casts were less accurate compared to stone casts |
Imburgia et al. [46] | Partial maxillary arch with 3 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (Tr = 50 μm/Pr = 24 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 45 μm/Pr = 24 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 58 μm/Pr = 26 μm) TrueDef (Tr = 61 μm/Pr = 19 μm | N/A | ScanRider | CS3600 had SS higher trueness compared to other IOS. No SS differences in precision were found Accuracy in the partial arch is higher for all IOS compared to the Full arch situation |
Chew et al. [24] | Partial jaw with 2 implants and 2 different depths | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 2) | Trios True Def iTero | Polyether mono (custom tray) | CMM Model Global Silver | Conventional impressions had ss less deviation compared to IOS. Implant depth affected IOS accuracy. Angulation did not affect accuracy |
Chia et al. [25] | Partial jaw with 2 implants and 3 different angulations | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 3) | Trios (31-45 μm) depending on configuration | Polyether mono (custom tray) (18-33 μm) depending on configuration | CMM Model Global Silver | Distortions were found with conventional and IOS imps. Conventional imps in parallel implants had highest accuracy compared to IOS. Angulation affects IOS accuracy |
Marghalani et al. [31] | Partially dentate mandibles with 2 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 2) | Omnicam (33-55 μm) True Def (27-39 μm) | Polyether mono on splinted implant copings (open tray) (26-53 μm) | Activity 880 industrial scanner | True Def IOS was more accurate but SS difference were not always observed Low deviations < 56 μm |
Kim et al. [47] | Partially dentate mandible with 6 implant cylinders | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 Omnicam CS3600 I500 iTero Element | N/A | StereoSCANneo | All IOSs exhibit deviations as scanning distance increases from the start position Trios3 and Medit outperformed other IOSs for partially edentulous accuracy |
Mangano et al. [23] | Partial edentulous maxilla with 2 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (Tr = 28 μm/Pr = 21 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 23 μm/Pr = 17 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 38 μm/Pr = 43 μm) DWIO (Tr = 49 μm/Pr = 34 μm Emerald (Tr = 49 μm/Pr = 29 μm) | N/A | Freedom DOF | Trios3 and CS3600 were SS more accurate compared to other IOS Accuracy of IOS in implants complete arch is NOT corelated to IOS resolution |
Motel et al. [65] | Titanium partial model with 3 implants and 3 different scanbody designs and 2 different scan strategies | Distance and 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | N/A | ATOS So4 II | All in One scan strategy produced more accurate results (71 μm) Emergence profile scan produced lower accuracy (125 μm) In All in One scan strategy, cylindrical scanbodies with flatter surfaces produced more accurate results |
Alsharbaty et al. [32] | Partially dentate mandibles and maxillae with 2 posterior adjacent implants | Distance | In vivo (n = 28) | Trios 3 | PVS (Panasil) dual mix, plastic tray/splinted (used as reference) PVS (Panasil) dual mix, plastic tray/non splinted in open and closed tray methods (used for comparison) | CMM (Dea Global) | Conventional open tray pick-up impression was ss more accurate compared to IOS and conventional closed tray pick-up impression |
Jiang et al. [92] | Partial dentate maxilla and mandible with implants and 2–4 teeth span | 3D surface | In vivo (n = 31) | Trios (27 μm) | Material not provided/splinted, open tray | D800 | The 3D discrepancy between digital and traditional impression is within clinical acceptable range |
References | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression type (stone cast accuracy) | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gimenez-Gonzalez et al. [59] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | Lava COS | N/A | CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex | Operator experience ss influenced accuracy. Angulation and depth of placement did no ss influence accuracy |
Gimenez et al. [48] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | 3D Progress ZFX Intrascan | N/A | CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex | Experience of the operator, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in accuracy with either scanner ZFX presented higher FA accuracy |
Papaspyridakos et al. [33] | Full arch edentulous mandible with 5 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 2 | Polyether mono Implant level splinted/unsplinted Polyether mono Abutment level splinted/unsplinted | Iscan iD103 Imetric | IOS resulted in accuracy similar to splinted conventional implant impressions. Both were SS more accurate to non-splinted conventional imps. Implant angulations up to 10–15 degrees did not affect IOS accuracy |
Vandeweghe et al. [49] | Full arch edentulous mandible with 6 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 2 (28 μm) Lava COS (112 μm) True Def (35 μm) Omnicam (61 μm) | N/A | 104i Imetric | Newer generation IOS performed very well regarding full arch accuracy |
Imburgia et al. [46] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (Tr = 67 μm/Pr = 31 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 60 μm/Pr = 65 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 66 μm/Pr = 57 μm) TrueDef (Tr = 106 μm/Pr = 75 μm | N/A | ScanRider | CS3600 had SS higher accuracy compared to other IOS. Accuracy in the partial arch is higher for all IOS compared to the Full arch situation |
Amin et al. [34] | Edentulous mandible with 5 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Omnicam (46 μm) True Def (19 μm) | Polyether mono splinted (custom open tray) (168 μm) | Activity 880 (Smart Optics) | Digital IOS FA impressions were ss more accurate compared to conventional FA impressions True Def IOS was ss more accurate than Omnicam IOS |
Gimenez et al. [62] | Edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | True Def (70 μm) | N/A | CMM Mitutoyo Crista Apex | The size of visible scanbody affects accuracy. Angulation of scanbodies does not influence accuracy. Scan distance (full arch) affects accuracy |
Ciocca et al. [60] | Edentulous titanium mandible with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | True Def (41-82 μm) | N/A | OCMM SmartScope Flash CNC 300 | Operator experience did not influence mean IOS FA accuracy Deviations increased with increase in the length of scan |
Alikhasi et al. [39] | 2 Fully edentulous maxillae with 4 implants each (trilobed and external hexagon connection) | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 2) | Trios 3 | PVS dual mix with custom trays (open and closed tray) | CMM Mistral and CMM Atos Core 80 | IOS was ss more accurate than PVS open and closed tray. PVS open is ss more accurate than PVS closed. Type of implant connection does not influence IOS accuracy. Implant angulation does not influence IOS accuracy |
Mutwalli et al. [50] | Edentulous maxillary cast with 5 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 mono (63 μm) Trios 3 (114 μm) iTero (41 μm) Atos Core (19 μm) | N/A | Carl Zeiss CMM | Low precision of all IOS for full arch scanning iTero was statistically the most accurate TRIOS official strategy was not used |
Gintaute et al. [63] | Edentulous mandibular models with 4 and 6 implants with different angulations | Distance | In vitro (n = 4) | TrueDef | PVS dual mix PE single step both with custom open tray | CMM Createch Medical | The accuracy of the IOS and conventional impression-making approaches for straight and tilted dental implants was comparable, and might be clinically considered for full-arch, multiple-implant restorations |
Tan et al. [37] | Maxillary full arch models with 6 and 8 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 2) | Trios True Def Ceramill Map400 InEos X5 D900 | Polyether mono splinted (open tray) | CMM (Renishaw) | True Def was ss less accurate Conventional imps had better accuracy compared to IOS Decreasing implant distance may help reduce IOS distortion |
Kim et al. [36] | Full arch edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | PVS Aquasil mono, custom tray-splinted | Contura CMM | Conventional open-splinted tray impression produced more accurate impressions compared to IOS |
Mangano et al. [23] | Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (Tr = 46 μm/Pr = 35 μm) CS3600 (Tr = 44 μm/Pr = 35 μm) Omnicam (Tr = 70 μm/Pr = 89 μm) DWIO (Tr = 92 μm/Pr = 111 μm Emerald (Tr = 66 μm/Pr = 61 μm) | N/A | Freedom DOF | Trios3 and CS3600 were SS more accurate in Full arch compared to other IOS Accuracy of IOS in implants FA is NOT corelated to IOS resolution |
Mizumoto et al. [75] | Full edentulous polyurethane maxillary cast with 4 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios | N/A | COMET L3D | Accuracy of 4- implants FA is not affected by inclusion of the palate in the scan or not |
Rech-Ortega et al. [40] | Model with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | True Definition (21-118 μm) depending on the interimplant distance | Polyether (open tray) non-splinted 20-68 μm depending on the interimplant distance | CMM Heningshaw | For adjacent implants (up to 4) both techniques are satisfactory The longer the distance between implants, the lower the accuracy of both techniques |
Di Fiore et al. [51] | Full edentulous mandibular PMMA cast with 6 scanbodies | Distance and 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (32 μm) True Def (31 μm) Omnicam (71 μm) 3DProgress (344 μm) CS3500 (107 μm) CS3600 (61 μm) Emerald (101 μm) DWIO (148 μm) | N/A | SmartScope CMM | Some IOS performed better than others in full arch scans The size of the output file is independent of the accuracy of the IOS |
Arcuri et al. [61] | Fully edentulous maxilla with 6 implants | Distance and angulation | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | N/A | ATOS Compact Scan 5 | Implant scanbody material significantly influenced IOS FA digital impression with peek showing the best results on both linear and angular measurements, followed by titanium, with peek-titanium showing the worst results Implant angulation significantly affected the linear deviations while implant position the angular deviation. No significant operator effect on the IOS accuracy was detected |
Bilmenoglou et al. [53] | Edentulous mandible with 6 implants | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios color pod (31 μm) Trios color cart (40 μm) Trios mono cart (43 μm) 3Dprogress(102 μm) Omnicam (32 μm) Bluecam (45 μm) Apollo DI (37 μm) E4D (82 μm) Planscan (345 μm) Lythos (113 μm) | N/A | ATOS CORE 80 | TRIOS devices, Omnicam, Apollo DI, and Bluecam are suitable for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses |
Sami et al. [52] | Edentulous mandibular model with 6 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios TrueDef Omnicam Emerald | N/A | Edge ScanArm (Faro) | No statistical or clinical differences were found among the scanners tested. The 3D map was the best method for observing the data |
Miyoshi et al. [35] | Maxillary edentulous model with 6 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 2 (Pr = 29 μm) TrueDef (Pr = 16 μm) Omnicam (Pr = 19 μm) CS3600 (Pr = 21 μm) | PVS dual mix (Imprint 4) with custom open tray-splinted-abutment (Pr = 21 μm) | D810 (Pr = 3,9 μm) | Range of scanning influenced impression accuracy. Digital impressions for implants should be limited to 3-unit structures on 2 impl |
Mizumoto et al. [66] | Edentulous maxilla with 4 implants scanned with 5 different sets of scan bodies and 4 different strategies | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios | N/A | COMET L3D | Scanbody design influences accuracy (the smoother the better). Also, soft tissue surface modifications (pressure paste) did not produce more accurate scans |
Huang et al. [38] | Edentulous mandibular cast with 4 implants and 3 different scanbody designs | 3D Surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 (Tr = 28-38 μm/(Pr = 27-48 μm) depending on the scanbody used.) | PVS putty and light (Silagum) splinted (open tray) (Tr = 25 μm/Pr = 19 μm) | D2000 | Conventional splinted open tray impressions were ss more accurate than IOS digital impressions. Experimental design with interconnected scanbodies SS improved accuracy |
Chochlidakis et al. [58] | Full arch maxillary edentulous patients with multiple implants (4–6) | 3D Surface | In vivo (n = 16) | True Def (RMS 162 μm) 4 implants (139 μm) 5 implants (146 μm) 6 implants (185 μm) | Heavy and light PVS (Imprint)-open tray technique | 7series (Dental Wings) | Mean IOS deviation was 162 μm which is marginally acceptable for clinical accuracy Increasing the implant number tended to increase the global deviation in the IOS impressions but with no SS |
References | 3D printers tested | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression (type) | Reference cast | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Revilla-Leon et al. [42] | Projet 3510 (POLYJET) Prodways Promaker D35 (DLP) Objet Eden (POLYJET) Infinident (SLA) | Maxillary edentulous arch with 7 implants | Distance | In vitro (n = 1) | DS20 (Renishaw) | Polyether, splinted with custom tray | Type IV gypsum (Fujirock) with 7 ELOS analogues | CMM | For the 3d printed models, more distortion was observed in the X axis DLP and POLYJET showed accuracy comparable to stone cast |
Papaspyridakos et al. [41] | Form2 Formlabs (SLA) | Mandibular edentulous cast with 4 implants | 3D surface | In vitro (n = 1) | Trios 3 | N/A | Master stone cast | Activity 880 Smart Optics | the printed casts had a mean SD RMS error of 59 μm The implant 3D deviations of the printed casts from complete-arch digital scans had statistically significant differences compared with those of the master cast but may still be within the acceptable range for clinical application |
References | No of patients/mean age/follow-up | Indication | Location | Abutment type | Intraoral scanner used | Success (%)/survival (%) | Complications | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Joda and Brägger, [86] | 20/55,4y/N/A | 40 single implant screw retained crowns Test: 20 Zirconia (digital impression) Control: 20 metal-ceramic crowns (conventional impression) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Test: customised titanium abutments Control: prefabricated abutments | iTero | 100/100 for both groups at delivery | No corrections needed at delivery for either group | Mean total production time, mean clinical and mean laboratory time were SS shorter for the test group compared to the control |
Joda and Brägger, [87] | 20/55,4y/N/A | 20 single implant screw-retained crowns Test:10 LS2 crowns (digital impression) Control:10 Zirconia-porcelain crowns (digital impression + model milling) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Prefabricated Ti-base abutment | iTero | 100/100 for both groups at delivery | Test: no corrections needed at delivery Control: 40% interproximal corrections, 30% occlusal corrections | Mean total production time (clinic and lab) was SS shorter in the test compared to the control group Especially the laboratory time efficiency was SS shorter for the complete digital workflow |
Joda et al. [84] | 20/55y/3y | 20 single implant Zirconia-porcelain cement-retained crowns (digital impression + model milling) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Customised Ti abutments | iTero | 100/100 | None observed | The patients’ level of satisfaction correlated well with FIPS |
Joda et al. [5] | 44/58,1y/2y | 50 single implant LS2 screw-retained crowns | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Prefabricated Ti-base abutment | iTero | 100/100 | None observed | CAD/CAM-produced monolithic implant crowns out of LS2 in a complete digital workflow seem to be a feasible treatment concept for the rehabilitation of single-tooth gaps in posterior sites under mid-term observation |
Joda et al. [93] | 20/55,4y/3y | 20 single implant screw-retained crowns Test:10 LS2 crowns (digital impression) Control:10 Zirconia-porcelain crowns (digital impression + model milling) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Prefabricated Ti-base abutment | iTero | 100/100 for both groups | None observed | Subjective patient's perception of posterior implant crowns processed in complete digital and combined analog–digital workflows revealed comparable high levels of satisfaction on the overall treatment outcome including function, esthetics, and cleanability after 3 years |
Mangano and Veronesi, [79] | 50/52,6y/1y | 50 single implant crowns, cement-retained Test:25 zirconia crowns (digital impression) Control:25 metal-ceramic crowns (conventional impression) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | 25 Customised Zirconia abutments on Ti bases 25 Customised Titanium abutments | CS3600 | 92/100 for both groups | Test: 4% biologic 4% prosthetic 0,39 mm bone loss (mean) Control: 8% biologic 0% prosthetic 0,55 mm bone loss (mean) | Identical survival and complication rates between groups No SS differences in marginal bone loss Patients preferred the digital procedures more Digital procedures were more time and cost effective |
Joda et al. [83] | 20/55y/5y | 20 single implant Zirconia-porcelain, screw-retained crowns | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Customised Ti abutments | iTero | 95/95 | 1 implant loss Mean bone loss: 0,23 mm mesially 0,17 mm distally | CAD/CAM-processed implant crowns demonstrated promising radiographic and clinical outcomes after 5 years in function |
Mangano et al. [80] | 25/51,1y/1y | 40 single implant zirconia screw-retained crowns | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | 25 Customised Zirconia abutments on Ti bases | CS3600 | 92,4%/97,5% | 7,6% prosthetic | Minor complications such as infra-occlusion, interproximal issues, aesthetics, de-cementation of crowns were reported |
Delize et al. [78] | 31/47,5y/N/A | Single implant screw-retained crowns 31 Zr-Porcelain crowns (conventional impression) 31 Zr crowns (digital impression) | Premolar and molar-Maxilla only | Prefabricated Ti bases | Trios 2 | 96,8 for Zr digital 100 for Zr-porcelain | 1/31 Zr crown could not be seated on the Ti-base abutment at try in No follow-up | Both crowns displayed acceptable and comparable clinical precision (contact points and occlusion) From an esthetic point of view, both the patients and the dentists preferred the conventional over the monolithic Zi crowns |
De Angelis et al. [81] | 38/65,6y/3y | 19 LS2 cad- cam screw-retained crowns (digital impressions) 19 Zirconia screw-retained crowns (digital impressions) | Premolar and molar | Prefabricated Ti-bases | Bluecam | LS2 group: 89/100 Zirconia group: 95/100 | LS2 group: 5% prosthetic Zirconia group: 5% prosthetic | Monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate and zirconia screw-retained single crowns fabricated with a fully digital workflow were found to be reliable and suitable clinical options for restoring a posterior missing tooth on a dental implant |
Lerner et al. [82] | 90/53,3y/3y | 106 single implant screw retained monolithic zirconia crowns (digital impression) | Premolar and Molar-Maxilla and mandible | Hybrid zirconia abutments with titanium bonding base | CS3600 | 91,3/99 | 1,9% Biologic 5,7% Prosthetic | The quality of the fabrication of the individual hybrid abutments revealed a mean deviation of 44 μm (± 6.3) between the original CAD design of the zirconia abutment, and the mesh of the zirconia abutment captured intraorally at the end of the provisionalisation. At the delivery of the MZCs, the marginal adaptation, quality of interproximal and occlusal contacts, and aesthetic integration were excellent |
Reference | Indication | Measurement | Study type | Intraoral/extraoral scanner used | Analogue impression (type) | Reference scanner | Conclusions |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rutkunas et al. [85] | 48 two-implant retained zirconia FPDs (2,3 and 4 units) | Distance and angulation Screw resistance Clinical fit | In vivo (n = 24 patients) | Trios 3 | PVS (Express) splinted-open tray | D800 | Angulation of more than 10° between the implants could negatively affect the passive fit of the digitally fabricated restorations intraorally Inter-implant distance does not seem to affect the passive fit of restorations, independent on if they are made digitally or conventionally |