Influence of Scan Body Design on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: A Narrative Review

Karima Salah Eibed; Aisha Ali Albehbah; Ahmed Mohammed Osman; Laila M Abdelrahim

doi:10.64943/ljacs.2026.010216

Authors

Karima Salah Eibed Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0264-2181
Aisha Ali Albehbah Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6587-3089
Ahmed Mohammed Osman Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0702-680X
Laila M Abdelrahim Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Clinical Science, Faculty of Dentistry, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5378-8506

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64943/ljacs.2026.010216

Keywords:

digital implant impression; intraoral scanner; scan body; scan body geometry; trueness; precision; implant prosthodontics.

Abstract

Digital implant impressions are now widely used in prosthodontics because they can improve workflow efficiency, patient comfort, and digital communication between the clinic and the laboratory. Their accuracy depends on multiple factors, including the scanner, implant location, scanning strategy, and scan body design. Among these, scan body design has received increasing attention because it directly affects the scanner’s ability to capture implant position and reconstruct prosthetic geometry accurately.
This narrative review evaluates the influence of scan body design on the accuracy of digital implant impressions, focusing on geometry, height, diameter, material, retention system, and surface modifications. Current evidence indicates that simplified geometries, stable seating, and design features that provide clear optical landmarks may improve trueness and precision. Cylindrical or streamlined scan bodies and designs with rigid extensions often perform better than more complex geometries, although no design has been shown to be universally superior across all scanners and clinical situations. Most available evidence is derived from in vitro studies, and more standardized clinical research is needed to confirm which design features produce clinically meaningful improvements.

References

Yilmaz, H., Arınç, H., Çakmak, G., Atalay, S., Donmez, M. B., Kökat, A. M., & Yilmaz, B. (2024). Effect of scan pattern on the scan accuracy of a combined healing abutment scan body system. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 131(1), 110-118.‏

2. Pachiou, A., Zervou, E., Tsirogiannis, P., Sykaras, N., Tortopidis, D., & Kourtis, S. (2023). Characteristics of intraoral scan bodies and their influence on impression accuracy: A systematic review. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 35(8), 1205-1217.‏

3. Gómez‐Polo, M., Donmez, M. B., Çakmak, G., Yilmaz, B., & Revilla‐León, M. (2023). Influence of implant scan body design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on intraoral scanning accuracy: A systematic review. Journal of Prosthodontics, 32(S2), 165-180.‏

4. Tan, J. Z. H., Tan, M. Y., Toh, Y. L. S., Wong, K. Y., & Tan, K. B. C. (2022). Three-dimensional positional accuracy of intraoral and laboratory implant scan bodies. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 128(4), 735-744.‏

5. Eggmann, F., & Blatz, M. B. (2024). Recent advances in intraoral scanners. Journal of Dental Research, 103(13), 1349-1357.‏

6. Mizumoto, R. M., & Yilmaz, B. (2018). Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 120(3), 343-352.‏

7. Gimenez‐Gonzalez, B., Hassan, B., Özcan, M., & Pradíes, G. (2017). An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. Journal of Prosthodontics, 26(8), 650-655.‏

8. Arcuri, L., Pozzi, A., Lio, F., Rompen, E., Zechner, W., & Nardi, A. (2020). Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial. Journal of prosthodontic research, 64(2), 128-136.‏

9. Michelinakis, G., Apostolakis, D., Nikolidakis, D., & Lapsanis, G. (2024). Influence of different scan body design features and intraoral scanners on the congruence between scan body meshes and library files: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 132(2), 454-e1.‏

10. Leggeri, A., Carosi, P., Mazzetti, V., Arcuri, C., & Lorenzi, C. (2023). Techniques to improve the accuracy of intraoral digital impression in complete edentulous arches: A narrative review. Applied Sciences, 13(12), 7068.‏

11. Lie, A., & Jemt, T. (1994). Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 5(1), 30-36.‏

12. Batak, B., Yilmaz, B., Shah, K., Rathi, R., Schimmel, M., & Lang, L. (2020). Effect of coded healing abutment height and position on the trueness of digital intraoral implant scans. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 123(3), 466-472.‏

13. Pan, Y., Tsoi, J. K., Lam, W. Y., Chen, Z., & Pow, E. H. (2022). Does the geometry of scan bodies affect the alignment accuracy of computer‐aided design in implant digital workflow: An in vitro study?. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 33(3), 313-321.‏

14. Alvarez, C., Domínguez, P., Jiménez-Castellanos, E., Arroyo, G., & Orozco, A. (2022). How the geometry of the scan body affects the accuracy of digital impressions in implant supported prosthesis. In vitro study. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 14(12), e1008.‏

15. Sanda, M., Miyoshi, K., & Baba, K. (2021). Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review. International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 7(1), 97.‏

16. Thomas, A. A., & Jain, R. K. (2023). Influence of operator experience on scanning time and accuracy with two different intraoral scanners-a prospective clinical trial. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, 36(1), 10.‏

17. Revilla‐León, M., Kois, D. E., & Kois, J. C. (2023). A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 35(1), 230-240.‏

18. Fratila, A. M., Saceleanu, A., Arcas, V. C., Fratila, N., & Earar, K. (2025). Enhancing intraoral scanning accuracy: from the influencing factors to a procedural guideline. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(10), 3562.‏

19. Revilla‐León, M., Kois, D. E., & Kois, J. C. (2023). A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2—Patient factors. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 35(1), 241-249.‏

20. Alkadi, L. (2023). A comprehensive review of factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Diagnostics, 13(21), 3291.‏

21. Mohajerani, R., Djalalinia, S., & Alikhasi, M. (2025). The effects of scan body geometry on the precision and the trueness of implant impressions using intraoral scanners: a systematic review. Dentistry Journal, 13(6), 252.‏

22. García-Martínez, I., Zarauz, C., Morejón, B., Ferreiroa, A., & Pradíes, G. (2022). Influence of customized over-scan body rings on the intraoral scanning effectiveness of a multiple implant edentulous mandibular model. Journal of Dentistry, 122, 104095.‏

23. Motel, C., Kirchner, E., Adler, W., Wichmann, M., & Matta, R. E. (2020). Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. Journal of Prosthodontics, 29(4), 309-314.‏

24. Moslemion, M., Payaminia, L., Jalali, H., & Alikhasi, M. (2020). Do type and shape of scan bodies affect accuracy and time of digital implant impressions?. The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry, 28(1), 18-27.‏

25. Huang, R., Liu, Y., Huang, B., Zhang, C., Chen, Z., & Li, Z. (2020). Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete‐arch implant rehabilitation. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 31(7), 625-633.‏

26. Lawand, G., Ismail, Y., Revilla-León, M., & Tohme, H. (2024). Effect of implant scan body geometric modifications on the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 131(6), 1189-1197.‏

27. Revilla‐León, M., Aragoneses, R., Arroyo Valverde, E. M., Gómez‐Polo, M., & Kois, J. C. (2025). Classification of scanning errors of digital scans recorded by using intraoral scanners. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 37(6), 1363-1371.‏

28. Revilla-León, M., Fogarty, R., Barrington, J. J., Zandinejad, A., & Özcan, M. (2020). Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 124(2), 202-210.‏

29. Farah, R. F. I., Alresheedi, B., Alazmi, S., & Al‐Haj Ali, S. N. (2025). Evaluating the impact of scan body angulation and geometric attachments on the accuracy of complete‐arch digital implant impressions: a comparison of two intraoral scanners. Journal of Prosthodontics, 34(2), 174-181.‏

30. Wan, Q., Limpuangthip, N., Hlaing, N. H. M. M., Hahn, S., Lee, J. H., & Lee, S. J. (2024). Enhancing scanning accuracy of digital implant scans: A systematic review on application methods of scan bodies. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 132(5), 898-e1.‏

31. Shetty, P. S., Gangurde, A. P., Chauhan, M. R., Jaiswal, N. V., Salian, P. R., & Singh, V. (2025). Accuracy of the digital implant impression with splinted and non-splinted intraoral scan bodies: A systematic review. The Journal of the Indian Prosthodontic Society, 25(1), 3.‏

32. Huang, R., Liu, Y., Huang, B., Zhou, F., Chen, Z., & Li, Z. (2021). Improved accuracy of digital implant impressions with newly designed scan bodies: an in vivo evaluation in beagle dogs. BMC Oral Health, 21(1), 623.‏

33. Özal, Ç. (2025). Guide to optimizing the accuracy of intraoral implant scans: A review article. Cyprus Journal of Medical Sciences.‏

34. Anitua, E., Lazcano, A., Anitua, B., Eguia, A., & Alkhraisat, M. H. (2025). Influence of scan body geometry on the trueness of intraoral scanning. BDJ open, 11(1), 83.‏

35. Moon, H. S., Choi, A., Oh, K. C., Sun, M., & Kim, J. (2026). Effect of scan body geometric configuration and library design on digital implant impression accuracy. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics, 18(1), 55.‏

36. Choi, Y. D., Lee, K. E., Mai, H. N., & Lee, D. H. (2020). Effects of scan body exposure and operator on the accuracy of image matching of implant impressions with scan bodies. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 124(3), 379-e1.‏

37. Gómez-Polo, M., Sallorenzo, A., Ortega, R., Gómez-Polo, C., Barmak, A. B., Att, W., & Revilla-León, M. (2024). Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 131(1), 119-127.‏

38. Ajioka, H., Kihara, H., Odaira, C., Kobayashi, T., & Kondo, H. (2016). Examination of the position accuracy of implant abutments reproduced by intra-oral optical impression. PloS one, 11(10), e0164048.‏

39. Althubaitiy, R. (2022). The accuracy of digital implant impressions when using and varying the material and diameter of the dental implant scan bodies. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry.‏

40. Grande, F., Balma, A. M., Mussano, F., & Catapano, S. (2025). Effect of Implant Scan Body type, Intraoral scanner and Scan Strategy on the accuracy and scanning time of a maxillary complete arch implant scans: An in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry, 159, 105782.‏

41. Uzel, S. M., Guncu, M. B., Aktas, G., Arikan, H., Reiss, N., & Turkyilmaz, I. (2023). Influence of the implant scan body modifications on trueness of digital impressions. Journal of Dental Sciences, 18(4), 1771-1777.‏

42. Meneghetti, P. C., Li, J., Borella, P. S., Mendonça, G., & Burnett Jr, L. H. (2023). Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study. PLoS One, 18(12), e0295790.‏

43. Ashraf, Y., Abo El Fadl, A., Hamdy, A., & Ebeid, K. (2023). Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 35(8), 1257-1263.‏

44. Gehrke, P., Rashidpour, M., Sader, R., & Weigl, P. (2024). A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies. International journal of implant dentistry, 10(1), 20.‏

45. Rutkūnas, V., Gečiauskaitė, A., Jegelevičius, D., & Vaitiekūnas, M. (2017). Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol, 10(Suppl 1), 101-20.‏