Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.