PURPOSE: Digitalization in dentistry has increased interest in the use of intraoral scanners (IOs) in clinical practice. However, knowledge of implant digitalization is primarily limited to in vitro studies. This study aimed to compare implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) fabricated following complete digital workflow using various implant scan bodies (SB) in treatment of short-span partial edentulism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 25 short-span posterior edentulous sites, each receiving two implants to support a fixed restoration, were included. Digital implant records were made consecutively with original, non-original, and generic SBs using IOs. A practitioner implemented a two-stage full-arch scanning protocol, beginning with continuous arch scanning, followed by individual scanning of SBs. For clinical evaluation, each site received screw-retained full-contour restorations to qualify the connection fit to the implants and contacts to the adjacent and antagonist teeth. For analytical comparison, implant axes calculated from SB scans were quantified using reverse engineering software to compare the differences three-dimensionally. Restorative outcomes and implant axes records were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test and generalized estimating equations, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical delivery conditions did not differ significantly among the three intraoral SBs (P > .05). The analytical implant-position calculations for non-original and generic SBs did not present significant differences compared to original SBs (P > .05). CONCLUSION SBs with different hardware and software characteristics for an implant system are clinically acceptable for fabricating screw-retained short-span implant-supported FDPs using a complete digital workflow.

PURPOSE: Digitalization in dentistry has increased interest in the use of intraoral scanners (IOs) in clinical practice. However, knowledge of implant digitalization is primarily limited to in vitro studies. This study aimed to compare implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) fabricated following complete digital workflow using various implant scan bodies (SB) in treatment of short-span partial edentulism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 25 short-span posterior edentulous sites, each receiving two implants to support a fixed restoration, were included. Digital implant records were made consecutively with original, non-original, and generic SBs using IOs. A practitioner implemented a two-stage full-arch scanning protocol, beginning with continuous arch scanning, followed by individual scanning of SBs. For clinical evaluation, each site received screw-retained full-contour restorations to qualify the connection fit to the implants and contacts to the adjacent and antagonist teeth. For analytical comparison, implant axes calculated from SB scans were quantified using reverse engineering software to compare the differences three-dimensionally. Restorative outcomes and implant axes records were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test and generalized estimating equations, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical delivery conditions did not differ significantly among the three intraoral SBs (P > .05). The analytical implant-position calculations for non-original and generic SBs did not present significant differences compared to original SBs (P > .05). CONCLUSION SBs with different hardware and software characteristics for an implant system are clinically acceptable for fabricating screw-retained short-span implant-supported FDPs using a complete digital workflow.

PURPOSE: Digitalization in dentistry has increased interest in the use of intraoral scanners (IOs) in clinical practice. However, knowledge of implant digitalization is primarily limited to in vitro studies. This study aimed to compare implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) fabricated following complete digital workflow using various implant scan bodies (SB) in treatment of short-span partial edentulism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 25 short-span posterior edentulous sites, each receiving two implants to support a fixed restoration, were included. Digital implant records were made consecutively with original, non-original, and generic SBs using IOs. A practitioner implemented a two-stage full-arch scanning protocol, beginning with continuous arch scanning, followed by individual scanning of SBs. For clinical evaluation, each site received screw-retained full-contour restorations to qualify the connection fit to the implants and contacts to the adjacent and antagonist teeth. For analytical comparison, implant axes calculated from SB scans were quantified using reverse engineering software to compare the differences three-dimensionally. Restorative outcomes and implant axes records were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test and generalized estimating equations, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical delivery conditions did not differ significantly among the three intraoral SBs (P > .05). The analytical implant-position calculations for non-original and generic SBs did not present significant differences compared to original SBs (P > .05). CONCLUSION SBs with different hardware and software characteristics for an implant system are clinically acceptable for fabricating screw-retained short-span implant-supported FDPs using a complete digital workflow.

PURPOSE: Digitalization in dentistry has increased interest in the use of intraoral scanners (IOs) in clinical practice. However, knowledge of implant digitalization is primarily limited to in vitro studies. This study aimed to compare implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) fabricated following complete digital workflow using various implant scan bodies (SB) in treatment of short-span partial edentulism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 25 short-span posterior edentulous sites, each receiving two implants to support a fixed restoration, were included. Digital implant records were made consecutively with original, non-original, and generic SBs using IOs. A practitioner implemented a two-stage full-arch scanning protocol, beginning with continuous arch scanning, followed by individual scanning of SBs. For clinical evaluation, each site received screw-retained full-contour restorations to qualify the connection fit to the implants and contacts to the adjacent and antagonist teeth. For analytical comparison, implant axes calculated from SB scans were quantified using reverse engineering software to compare the differences three-dimensionally. Restorative outcomes and implant axes records were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test and generalized estimating equations, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical delivery conditions did not differ significantly among the three intraoral SBs (P > .05). The analytical implant-position calculations for non-original and generic SBs did not present significant differences compared to original SBs (P > .05). CONCLUSION SBs with different hardware and software characteristics for an implant system are clinically acceptable for fabricating screw-retained short-span implant-supported FDPs using a complete digital workflow.

PURPOSE: Digitalization in dentistry has increased interest in the use of intraoral scanners (IOs) in clinical practice. However, knowledge of implant digitalization is primarily limited to in vitro studies. This study aimed to compare implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) fabricated following complete digital workflow using various implant scan bodies (SB) in treatment of short-span partial edentulism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 25 short-span posterior edentulous sites, each receiving two implants to support a fixed restoration, were included. Digital implant records were made consecutively with original, non-original, and generic SBs using IOs. A practitioner implemented a two-stage full-arch scanning protocol, beginning with continuous arch scanning, followed by individual scanning of SBs. For clinical evaluation, each site received screw-retained full-contour restorations to qualify the connection fit to the implants and contacts to the adjacent and antagonist teeth. For analytical comparison, implant axes calculated from SB scans were quantified using reverse engineering software to compare the differences three-dimensionally. Restorative outcomes and implant axes records were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test and generalized estimating equations, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical delivery conditions did not differ significantly among the three intraoral SBs (P > .05). The analytical implant-position calculations for non-original and generic SBs did not present significant differences compared to original SBs (P > .05). CONCLUSION SBs with different hardware and software characteristics for an implant system are clinically acceptable for fabricating screw-retained short-span implant-supported FDPs using a complete digital workflow.