Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible — a paired in vitro method-comparison study
4 affiliations
- 1Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, D-37075 Goettingen, Germany
- 2Muenster, Germany
- 3Dental Practice, Hildesheim, Germany
- 4Dental Practice, Aachen, Germany
Abstract
Background Three-dimensional postoperative implant assessment is increasingly performed using intraoral scan (IOS) superimposition as a radiation-free alternative to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). However, it remains unclear to what extent IOS- and CBCT-based measurements agree and how reproducibility changes across posterior mandibular configurations. Methods In this paired in vitro method-comparison study, based on the experimental platform of a previous study, 60 implants placed at Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) positions 35, 36, 45, 46 and 47 in bounded edentulous spaces (BES) and distal extension situations (DE) underwent three IOS-based and three CBCT-based postoperative assessments relative to the virtual plan using the Treatment Evaluation Tool of the planning software. Angular, mesiodistal, buccolingual, apico-coronal, and three-dimensional (3D) deviations at implant base and apex were recorded, resulting in 180 paired measurements. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis, and within-method reproducibility by the within-implant standard deviation (Sw). IOS variability was additionally separated into within-scan and between-scan components. Non-parametric analyses were used for comparisons by indication and FDI position. Results Mean absolute IOS–CBCT differences were 0.73° ± 0.55° for angular deviation, 0.22 ± 0.20 mm for the 3D base offset and 0.26 ± 0.22 mm for the 3D apical offset. Bland-Altman bias (CBCT − IOS) was small (− 0.35°; −0.05 mm; −0.07 mm) with 95% limits of agreement of [− 2.01°; +1.31°], [− 0.62; +0.53] mm and [− 0.73; +0.58] mm. Within-method reproducibility was superior for IOS in 8 of 9 parameters (e.g., Sw 0.20° vs. 0.55° for the angle), and IOS variability was dominated by scan-to-scan rather than within-scan re-evaluation. Discrepancies were larger in DE than in BES sites in 7 of 9 parameters (all p < 0.001 for the principal apical and buccolingual components) and were larger at position 47 than at position 35 (3D base p = 0.004; 3D apex p = 0.011). Conclusions In this in vitro setting, IOS- and CBCT-based implant assessment in the posterior mandible showed good agreement with small overall differences, and IOS demonstrated lower within-method variability than CBCT. IOS-based superimposition may therefore serve as a radiation-free complement to CBCT for the postoperative evaluation of single implants in bounded posterior sites. Agreement decreased in distal extension situations and at more distal positions; in these configurations, and whenever clinical decisions depend on sub-millimeter or sub-degree precision, CBCT remains the reference technique. Confirmation in vivo is required before routine clinical use.
Related
- Similar discrimination, different behaviour under synthetic occlusion: confidence and attribution reproducibility of deep learning models for intraoral ultrasonography
- Comparison of feasibility, inter-instrument agreement, and prognostic value of four frailty assessment instruments in geriatric colorectal cancer patients: a 3-year multicenter prospective cohort study
- Operators matter \textendash An assessment of the expectations, perceptions, and performance of dentists, postgraduate students, and dental prosthetist students using intraoral scanning
- Agreement between a wrist-worn solar-powered watch and a chest-mounted light logger in quantifying daily time above 1500 lx in children: a pilot field comparison study
- Clinical Comparison of Articulating Paper, Intraoral Scanner, and Jaw-Tracking Device for Occlusal Analysis
BibTeX
@article{hoene2026agreement,
title = {{Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible — a paired in vitro method-comparison study}},
author = {Georg Hoene and Shabnam Shahpasand and Felix Karl Waffenschmidt and Frederik Holdorf and Robert Stünkel and Alexander-Nicolai Zeller and Philipp Kauffmann},
journal = {International journal of implant dentistry},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1186/s40729-026-00725-y},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13691051},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Agreement and reproducibility of intraoral scan- versus CBCT-based three-dimensional implant position assessment in the posterior mandible — a paired in vitro method-comparison study
AU - Georg Hoene
AU - Shabnam Shahpasand
AU - Felix Karl Waffenschmidt
AU - Frederik Holdorf
AU - Robert Stünkel
AU - Alexander-Nicolai Zeller
AU - Philipp Kauffmann
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/23
JO - International journal of implant dentistry
DO - 10.1186/s40729-026-00725-y
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13691051
AB - Background Three-dimensional postoperative implant assessment is increasingly performed using intraoral scan (IOS) superimposition as a radiation-free alternative to cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). However, it remains unclear to what extent IOS- and CBCT-based measurements agree and how reproducibility changes across posterior mandibular configurations. Methods In this paired in vitro method-comparison study, based on the experimental platform of a previous study, 60 implants placed at Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) positions 35, 36, 45, 46 and 47 in bounded edentulous spaces (BES) and distal extension situations (DE) underwent three IOS-based and three CBCT-based postoperative assessments relative to the virtual plan using the Treatment Evaluation Tool of the planning software. Angular, mesiodistal, buccolingual, apico-coronal, and three-dimensional (3D) deviations at implant base and apex were recorded, resulting in 180 paired measurements. Agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis, and within-method reproducibility by the within-implant standard deviation (Sw). IOS variability was additionally separated into within-scan and between-scan components. Non-parametric analyses were used for comparisons by indication and FDI position. Results Mean absolute IOS–CBCT differences were 0.73° ± 0.55° for angular deviation, 0.22 ± 0.20 mm for the 3D base offset and 0.26 ± 0.22 mm for the 3D apical offset. Bland-Altman bias (CBCT − IOS) was small (− 0.35°; −0.05 mm; −0.07 mm) with 95% limits of agreement of [− 2.01°; +1.31°], [− 0.62; +0.53] mm and [− 0.73; +0.58] mm. Within-method reproducibility was superior for IOS in 8 of 9 parameters (e.g., Sw 0.20° vs. 0.55° for the angle), and IOS variability was dominated by scan-to-scan rather than within-scan re-evaluation. Discrepancies were larger in DE than in BES sites in 7 of 9 parameters (all p < 0.001 for the principal apical and buccolingual components) and were larger at position 47 than at position 35 (3D base p = 0.004; 3D apex p = 0.011). Conclusions In this in vitro setting, IOS- and CBCT-based implant assessment in the posterior mandible showed good agreement with small overall differences, and IOS demonstrated lower within-method variability than CBCT. IOS-based superimposition may therefore serve as a radiation-free complement to CBCT for the postoperative evaluation of single implants in bounded posterior sites. Agreement decreased in distal extension situations and at more distal positions; in these configurations, and whenever clinical decisions depend on sub-millimeter or sub-degree precision, CBCT remains the reference technique. Confirmation in vivo is required before routine clinical use.
SN - 2198-4034
ER -