Effect of wireless network parameters on implant position reproducibility of wireless intraoral scanners: An in vitro study

Effect of wireless network parameters on implant position reproducibility of wireless intraoral scanners: An in vitro study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of wireless network parameters on implant position reproducibility of wireless intraoral scanners: An in vitro study Takahiro Murakami, Reo Ikumi, Yasuhito Momose, Katsuhiro Asaka, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7212359/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Purpose The impact of wireless communication on intraoral scanning accuracy remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the implant position reproducibility of wireless and wired intraoral scanners and assess the effects of wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) communication distance and upload speed on wireless intraoral scanners. Methods An edentulous model with six implants was used as the master model and scanned using a high-accuracy scanner. Optical impressions were obtained using wireless intraoral scanners (Primescan2, SIRIOS, Trios 5) and a wired scanner (Primescan). For wireless scanners, the distance to the Wi-Fi router was set at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m, with scans performed at each distance. Primescan was scanned as a control. The master and intraoral scan data were superimposed using analysis software and evaluated through three-dimensional analysis. Implant position reproducibility was expressed as the concordance rate, defined as the percentage of surface area within a 50 µm deviation from the master data. The correlation between upload speed and reproducibility was also analyzed. Results Primescan2 maintained high concordances rates (> 78%) across all distances and demonstrated superior reproducibility compared to that of other scanners. SIRIOS and Trios 5 exhibited reduced concordance with increasing distance. A positive correlation was found between the upload speed and concordance rate for SIRIOS (R² = 0.72) and Trios 5 (R² = 0.57). Conclusions Primescan2 was least affected by the communication distance or upload speed and demonstrated higher reproducibility than Primescan. However, SIRIOS and Trios 5 demonstrated reduced reproducibility with increasing Wi-Fi distance. Wireless intraoral scanner Implant position reproducibility Optical impression Wi-Fi distance Upload speed Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Background Intraoral scanners have become indispensable tools in modern dentistry, with applications ranging from diagnosis and treatment planning to the fabrication of prostheses and enhancement of patient engagement [ 1 – 4 ]. The accuracy of these devices is a critical factor for successful clinical outcomes. While previous studies have shown that intraoral scanners provide clinically acceptable accuracy for short-span restorations [ 5 , 6 ], their performance in full-arch implant cases remains debatable. Some reports have suggested limitations in full-arch scanning due to accumulated errors over long distances [ 7 ], while others demonstrate comparable or superior accuracy of intraoral scanners to conventional methods even in such scenarios [ 8 ]. To date, most of these studies have focused on wired intraoral scanners. However, wireless intraoral scanners, which transfer data via Wi-Fi, have recently gained popularity due to their improved maneuverability and cleaner operatory environment. Although a few studies have compared wired and wireless scanners [ 9 ], the effects of specific wireless communication parameters, such as Wi-Fi distance or upload speed, on scanning accuracy have not been thoroughly evaluated. Upload speed refers to the rate at which data are transmitted from the scanner to an external device or cloud storage. Unstable communication conditions—such as increased router-to-scanner distance, signal attenuation, or limited bandwidth—may cause delayed or incomplete data transmission by wireless intraoral scanners. These disruptions can impair the real-time acquisition and processing of scan images, thereby compromising the accuracy of the three-dimensional reconstruction. Accurate implant position transfer is essential for the fabrication of well-fitting prostheses. Poor reproducibility may result in misfit of superstructures, which can increase the risk of mechanical complications, such as screw loosening, framework fracture, and even biological complications such as peri-implantitis and marginal bone loss. Therefore, ensuring optimal scanner performance—even under variable clinical Wi-Fi conditions—is critical to achieving long-term success in implant therapy. Based on these considerations, we hypothesized that greater Wi-Fi communication distances and slower upload speeds would negatively affect the implant position reproducibility of wireless intraoral scanners. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the three-dimensional implant position reproducibility of wired and wireless intraoral scanners using an edentulous mandibular model with six implants. Furthermore, we examined how Wi-Fi communication distance and upload speed influence the accuracy of wireless intraoral scanners. Methods Fabrication of the master model and acquisition of master dataset Six implants (Roxolid Tissue Level Standard Implant Ø4.1 mm RN-SLActive Loxim-10.0 mm, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) were embedded in a mandibular edentulous gypsum model at positions corresponding to 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 (FDI tooth numbering system). Subsequently, three reference bodies were attached, one each on the buccal aspect of implants at 47 and 37 regions and at the central lingual position between implants at 42 and 32 regions, completing the master model (Fig. 1 ). Scan bodies (CARES Mono Scan body RN, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) were attached to the implants, and a master dataset was acquired using a high-precision dental laboratory scanner (F8, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark, ISO 12836 accuracy: 4 µm). These scan bodies were cylindrical and made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Optical impression method using intraoral scanners Three wireless intraoral scanners, Primescan 2 (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA), SIRIOS (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), and Trios 5 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and one wired intraoral scanner, Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA), as a control, were used to obtain optical impressions. The scanning procedure involved scanning the alveolar ridge of the master model first, following the sequence shown in Fig. 2 a. Subsequently, scan bodies were attached to each implant on the master model and scanned (Fig. 2 b). The alveolar ridge data and scan body data were automatically matched using dedicated software: Primescan 2: Connect Software; SIRIOS: Virtuo Vivo Software; Trios 5; 3Shape Unite; Primescan: CEREC Software). For the wireless scanners, the distances between the scanner and Wi-Fi router were set at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m. The Wi-Fi routers used were WXR18000BE10P (Buffalo Inc., Nagoya, Japan) for Primescan 2 and TP-Link Archer T9UH (TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) for SIRIOS and Trios 5 (Fig. 3 ). All obstacles within a 5.0 m radius of the scanner and Wi-Fi router were removed to minimize interference. Based on previous studies [ 1 , 8 ], five scans per condition were performed, resulting in ten groups for analysis: Primescan 2 (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m), SIRIOS (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m), Trios 5 (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m), and Primescan (wired). Therefore, a total of 50 datasets were generated. The scanning environment was standardized with ambient lighting at 960 Hz (comparable to a typical dental clinic) and room temperature maintained at 25°C; all potential sources of electromagnetic interference were eliminated. The personal computers used for Primescan 2, SIRIOS, and Trios 5 were identical and equipped with DELL Precision 7680 Mobile Workstations (Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX, USA), each featuring a 13th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-13850HX vPro® processor (Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA). These standardized environmental and hardware conditions were implemented to minimize external influences on the scanning performance and ensure the reproducibility of results. All scans were performed by a single operator, a board-certified prosthodontist with 10 years of clinical experience (T.M., certified by the Japan Prosthodontic Society), to minimize operator-dependent variability. Measurement of upload speeds of Wi-Fi routers Each intraoral scanner was connected to a specific Wi-Fi router selected according to the manufacturer's compatibility requirements: Primescan 2 was paired with WXR18000BE10P (Buffalo Inc., Nagoya, Japan), while SIRIOS and Trios 5 used TP-Link Archer T9UH (TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China). The upload speeds between the wireless intraoral scanners and Wi-Fi routers at distances of 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m were measured five times for each condition, and average values were calculated. Due to software limitations and manufacturer-specific restrictions, different methods were used to measure the upload speeds. For WXR18000BE10P (used with Primescan 2), the Speedtest application by Ookla [ 10 ] was used, while for TP-Link Archer T9UH (used with SIRIOS and Trios 5), upload speeds were obtained from the Wi-Fi connection status interface of the connected PC, as the Speedtest application was not compatible. Analysis of scanning data Scanning data from the master model and each intraoral scanner were imported into a three-dimensional analysis software (GOM Inspect 2020, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany). The three reference bodies attached to the master model served as reference points to align the master dataset with the intraoral scanner datasets. Subsequently, three-dimensional positional deviations of the scan bodies in each dataset relative to the master dataset were visualized using color mapping. Deviations of + 100 µm were indicated in red, ± 20 µm in green, and − 100 µm in blue, with intermediate values shown as gradients. Concordance rates were calculated by considering regions within 50 µm deviation as matching. The dataset with a concordance rate equal to the median value in each group was selected as the representative example for color mapping analysis. This approach was intended to accurately reflect typical deviation patterns within each group while minimizing visual complexity. Statistical analysis Prior to the statistical analysis, the normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Based on the results, non-parametric tests were selected. The median and interquartile range of the matching areas of the scan bodies were calculated. Differences among groups were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. When significant differences were found, pairwise comparisons were performed using the Steel–Dwass test. All the statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 22.0, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA), with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. Additionally, to illustrate the relationship between upload speed and concordance rates for the six scan bodies, scatter plots of individual values for each condition were generated. A linear regression analysis was then performed to calculate the coefficient of determination (R²). Residual diagnostics were conducted to validate the regression models: residual normality was assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test, homoscedasticity was confirmed by visual inspection of the residual plots, and linearity between the upload speed and concordance rate was verified using scatterplot analysis. Results Concordance rates for the six scan bodies Figure 4 shows the concordance rates for the six scan bodies for each intraoral scanner. The median concordance rates (interquartile range) for Primescan2 were 82.3% (1.5), 82.3% (2.6), and 78.8% (5.2) at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m, respectively. For SIRIOS, the rates were 64.6% (3.5), 54.4% (4.3), and 50.4% (4.6) at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m, respectively. Trios 5 showed median concordance rates of 61.6% (19.2), 52.2% (24.0), and 29.5% (3.7) at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m. The wired control, Primescan, showed a median concordance rate of 63.5% (4.7). Statistical analysis revealed significantly higher concordance rates for Primescan2 at all distances compared to Primescan (p 0.05). SIRIOS at 0.5 m showed significantly higher concordance rates than at 2.0 m and 5.0 m (p 0.05). The concordance rates for Trios 5 at 0.5 m and Primescan were significantly higher than that for Trios at 5.0 m (p < 0.05). On comparing the three wireless scanners at identical distances, Primescan2 showed significantly higher concordance rates at all distances (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m) than SIRIOS and Trios 5 (p < 0.05). A significant difference in the concordance rates between SIRIOS and Trios 5 at 5.0 m was also noted (p < 0.05). Concordance rates for each scan body Figure 5 shows the concordance rates for each scan body across the four intraoral scanners. For Primescan2, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) at 0.5 m were 59.6% (14.3), 88.9% (18.8), 84.5% (16.7), 88.7% (1.4), 91.8% (5.7), and 92.6% (3.1) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 2.0 m, the rates were 78.6% (24.1), 79.5% (5.8), 83.6% (6.3), 86.7% (4.2), 88.1% (1.7), and 89.9% (0.8) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 5.0 m, the rates were 74.0% (30.0), 87.9% (32.9), 87.7% (5.2), 88.4% (8.5), 90.8% (3.6), and 85.4% (13.3) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. For SIRIOS, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) at 0.5 m were 51.0% (1.2), 53.5% (0.7), 58.8% (2.5), 60.7% (9.8), 80.0% (1.6), and 86.2% (4.2) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 2.0 m, the rates were 34.5% (5.2), 45.9% (6.7), 47.0% (9.9), 54.9% (21.6), 57.7% (18.8), and 76.4% (7.3) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 5.0 m, the rates were 32.6% (14.3), 51.6% (9.2), 48.6% (4.9), 49.3% (7.4), 61.9% (23.4), and 65.5% (35.4) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. For Trios 5, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) at 0.5 m were 56.4% (18.1), 55.1% (16.5), 52.9% (18.4), 55.3% (10.9), 65.1% (13.6), and 73.5% (35.6) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 2.0 m, the rates were 37.6% (25.8), 48.8% (18.6), 49.6% (27.5), 45.8% (27.2), 50.6% (12.2), and 51.1% (16.6) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 5.0 m, the rates were 18.3% (4.9), 24.5% (5.9), 26.4% (20.0), 32.0% (10.8), 36.5% (4.9), and 46.4% (28.4) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. For Primescan, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) were 37.2% (17.5), 67.5% (20.2), 66.9% (17.8), 66.1% (12.4), 80.1% (4.5), and 79.4% (1.9) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between concordance rates at 47 and 37 regions for Primescan2 at 0.5 m (p 0.05). For SIRIOS at 0.5 m, significant differences were found between concordance rates at 47 region and 32, 34, and 37 regions; 44 region and 32, 34, and 37 regions; 42 region and 34 and 37 regions; and 32 region and 34 and 37 regions (p 0.05). Trios 5 did not show any significant regional differences in concordance rates at any distance (p > 0.05). Primescan exhibited significant differences between concordance rates at 47 region and 32, 34, and 37 regions (p < 0.05). Evaluation of color mapping Median scanning data for Primescan2, SIRIOS, Trios 5, and Primescan via color mapping are presented in Fig. 6 . Primescan2 at 0.5 m showed minimal deviation within ± 20 µm across scan bodies. Slightly higher deviations (+ 100 µm) were noted at certain regions at greater distances. SIRIOS and Trios 5 showed significant deviations (+/−100 µm) distributed broadly across scan bodies at all distances, particularly pronounced at 2.0 m and 5.0 m. Primescan exhibited distinct directional deviations, notably − 100 µm on the buccal side and + 100 µm on the lingual side for 47, 44, and 42 regions. Relationship between the concordance rates for the six scan bodies and upload speeds Figure 7 and Table 1 demonstrate the relationship between the concordance rates for the six scan bodies and upload speeds. The average upload speeds were 186.0 Mbps (0.5 m), 150.8 Mbps (2.0 m), and 49.7 Mbps (5.0 m) for WXR18000BE10P, and 738.2 Mbps (0.5 m), 590.6 Mbps (2.0 m), and 369.1 Mbps (5.0 m) for TP-Link Archer T9UH. Linear regression analysis yielded the following results (Table 1): Primescan2: β = 0.0177, SE = 0.017, p = 0.318, 95% CI = − 0.019 to 0.055, R² = 0.077 → not statistically significant. SIRIOS: β = 0.0369, SE = 0.006, p < 0.001, 95% CI = 0.023 to 0.051, R² = 0.725 → strong, statistically significant positive correlation. Trios 5: β = 0.0707, SE = 0.017, p = 0.001, 95% CI = 0.034 to 0.108, R² = 0.567 → moderate, statistically significant positive correlation. These results indicate a significant dependence on the upload speed for SIRIOS and Trios 5, while Primescan2 showed no significant correlation. Discussion This study aimed to evaluate the three-dimensional reproducibility of implant positions using tissue-level implants embedded in a mandibular edentulous model, a crucial factor for the accurate fabrication of implant-supported prostheses. Tissue-level implants were specifically selected because they allow direct visual confirmation of the connection between the implant and scan body, facilitating highly accurate data acquisition. Additionally, manufacturer-certified PEEK scan bodies were used in this study, as a systematic review by Pachiou et al. indicated superior scanning accuracy with PEEK scan bodies compared to metallic ones [ 11 ]. Iwamoto et al. investigated the performance of intraoral scanners using a permissible error threshold of 100 µm, which is acceptable performance for general clinical applications [ 8 ]. In contrast, our study set a stricter permissible error threshold of 50 µm, which is more suitable for the precise fabrication of screw-retained superstructures. This decision was based on the findings of Wittneben et al., who reported fewer mechanical and biological complications associated with screw-retained superstructures compared to cement-retained ones [ 12 ], as well as the recommendation by Katsoulis et al. that the permissible error threshold for screw-retained prostheses should be within 50 µm [ 13 ]. Although many studies employ best-fit algorithms to analyze scanning data [ 14 – 16 ], these algorithms optimize the overall deviation by minimizing global errors, potentially masking localized discrepancies. Consequently, this method may hinder the precise evaluation of impression accuracy, particularly regarding implant positioning, which is crucial for clinical success. To overcome this limitation, our study employed three strategically placed reference bodies attached directly to the alveolar ridge for data alignment. This approach facilitated a clinically relevant and precise evaluation of the spatial relationship between the alveolar ridge and implant positions, thereby closely reflecting actual clinical scenarios encountered during prosthetic fabrication. Analysis of the concordance rates for the six scan bodies revealed that Primescan2 showed the highest implant position reproducibility across all tested distances, whereas the reproducibility of SIRIOS and Trios 5 decreased with increasing distance between the scanner and Wi-Fi device. Although Primescan2 and Primescan use similar scanning engines and algorithms, Primescan2 consistently outperformed Primescan. This improved performance is likely due to its upgraded imaging sensors, optical systems, image-processing engines, and optimized housing design. Enhanced internal calibration accuracy and thermal management during scanning may have also contributed to its stable performance. Both SIRIOS and Trios 5 at 0.5 m demonstrated implant position reproducibility comparable to that of Primescan. However, both exhibited lower concordance rates at 2.0 m and 5.0 m than Primescan. This reduction in accuracy may be attributed to their reliance on real-time data processing, which heavily depends on the hardware specifications of the connected personal computer (PC), such as processor and graphics performance, potentially leading to variations in processing speed and stability. In contrast, Primescan2 uploads data directly to DS Core, a Google Cloud-based platform by Dentsply Sirona, thereby eliminating dependence on local PC performance and ensuring consistent image reconstruction and data management. This asynchronous, cloud-based architecture buffers temporary network fluctuations, resulting in more stable and superior implant position reproducibility compared to the other wireless scanners. Assessment of concordance rates for individual scan bodies revealed a consistent pattern across scanners, with lower concordance rates observed at peripheral regions (e.g., positions 47 and 44) and higher rates at central regions (e.g., positions 32, 34, and 37). This pattern likely results from cumulative scanning errors during full-arch scanning. SIRIOS and Trios 5 exhibited significant region-specific deviations and directional biases, suggesting systematic errors influenced by scanning direction and software algorithms. In contrast, Primescan2 displayed minimal deviations (± 20 µm), highlighting its stable and precise scanning capabilities. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution when applied to clinical practice, as previous studies have demonstrated that factors, such as operator experience, patient movement, intraoral humidity, and limited mouth opening, can significantly influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners [ 17 ]. These variables were not accounted for in this in vitro study and may lead to greater variability in the implant position reproducibility in clinical settings. Regression analysis revealed that upload speed significantly correlated with implant position reproducibility for SIRIOS ( p < 0.001, R² = 0.725) and Trios 5 ( p = 0.001, R² = 0.567), indicating substantial dependency on stable, high-speed Wi-Fi environments. In contrast, Primescan2 revealed no statistically significant correlation ( p = 0.318, R² = 0.077), demonstrating its ability to maintain high implant position reproducibility even at lower upload speeds. This suggests that cloud-based architecture and asynchronous data transmission used by Primescan2 may provide superior clinical flexibility regardless of the network conditions. Although this study demonstrated that wireless intraoral scanners can achieve implant position reproducibility comparable to or even superior to wired scanners under optimal Wi-Fi conditions, several limitations should be noted. First, the in vitro master model used in this study does not fully replicate intraoral conditions, such as the presence of saliva, soft tissue dynamics, reflective surfaces, and spatial constraints. Second, only two Wi-Fi routers were evaluated, and more recent technologies, such as Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7, were not included. This may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Third, different methods were used to measure the upload speeds for the two routers due to software compatibility issues, potentially introducing measurement bias. Although actual upload speeds were used for regression analysis to reflect real-world conditions, the lack of a standardized measurement method limits the internal validity of the results. Fourth, technical network parameters, such as latency, frame rate, and packet loss, were not assessed, which may influence scanner performance under unstable Wi-Fi conditions and limit mechanistic interpretations. Finally, scan acquisition order was not randomized, and the operator was not blinded to the experimental conditions. Although all scans were performed by a single, board-certified prosthodontist to reduce operator-dependent variability, the lack of randomization and blinding may have introduced procedural bias and should be acknowledged as a methodological limitation. Future research should aim to validate these findings in clinical settings or in vitro models that simulate soft tissue and salivary conditions more realistically. To further improve measurement accuracy, standardized tools and protocols should be used across all network configurations. Evaluating the impact of advanced communication protocols (e.g., Wi-Fi 6E, Wi-Fi 7) and conducting technical analyses of latency and data loss will be essential for understanding performance under diverse network environments. Clinically, we recommend positioning Wi-Fi routers within 2 meters of the scanning area, avoiding physical obstructions, and utilizing high-performance routers. In terms of data analysis, future studies should incorporate additional accuracy metrics beyond the concordance rate within 50 µm, such as root mean square error, axis-specific deviations (X, Y, Z), and vector analysis, to capture spatial and directional discrepancies more comprehensively. Furthermore, interaction effects between the scanner type and variables, such as Wi-Fi distance or implant region, should be evaluated using two-way analysis of variance or similar analytical methods to identify potential performance patterns or degradation. Conclusions This study investigated the impact of Wi-Fi communication factors on the reproducibility of implant positions using wireless intraoral scanners. Under the experimental conditions of this study, Primescan2 demonstrated minimal sensitivity to changes in Wi-Fi communication distance and upload speeds, exhibiting superior implant position reproducibility compared to Primescan. In contrast, SIRIOS and Trios 5 showed reduced reproducibility with increasing distance from the Wi-Fi source. Abbreviations IOS intraoral scanner PC personal computer Wi-Fi wireless fidelity R² coefficient of determination Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Availability of data and material: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding: Not applicable. Authors’ contributions: TMurakami acquired and interpreted the experimental data. RI, YM, KA,TMiyashita, AO, and KS assisted with the acquisition and interpretation of the experimental data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements: Not applicable. References Tanaka J, Murakami T, Tanaka S, Kanno T, Imada Y. Accuracy of implant-supported copy overdentures fabricated using either an intraoral scanner and a 3D printer or the conventional copy denture technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37:989-96. Angelone F, Ponsiglione AM, Ricciardi C, Cesarelli G, Sansone M, Amato F. Diagnostic applications of intraoral scanners: A systematic review. J Imaging. 2023;9:134. Krymovskyy KG, Zhehulovych ZE, Storozhenko KV, Babaskin YI. Nowadays and the future of the 3D digital technologies in modern orthodontics. Wiad Lek. 2024;77:2047-56. Pesce P, Nicolini P, Caponio VCA, Zecca PA, Canullo L, Isola G, et al. Accuracy of full-arch intraoral scans versus conventional impression: a systematic review with a meta-analysis and a proposal to standardise the analysis of the accuracy. J Clin Med. 2024;14:71. Maundu CN, Osiro OA, Nyaga JM. Marginal fit of single-crown and three-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated from digital and conventional impressions: an in vitro cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2024;16:e73408. Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61:450-9. Natsubori R, Fukazawa S, Chiba T, Tanabe N, Kihara H, Kondo H. In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8:18. Iwamoto M, Atsuta W, Kaneko Y, Ito J, Kanno T, Murakami T, et al. Investigating the implant position reproducibility of optical impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner and 3D-printed models fabricated using an intraoral scanner. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9:14. Dönmez MB, Çakmak G, Schimmel M, Bayadse M, Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. Scan accuracy of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners in different fixed partial denture situations. J Dent. 2025;153:105558. Speedtest by Ookla. https://www.speedtest.net/. Accessed 27 June 2025. Pachiou A, Zervou E, Tsirogiannis P, Sykaras N, Tortopidis D, Kourtis S. Characteristics of intraoral scan bodies and their influence on impression accuracy: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35:1205-17. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:84-98. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Gaviria AS, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl:121-38. Azevedo L, Marques T, Karasan D, Fehmer V, Sailer I, Correia A, et al. Effect of splinting scan bodies on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans with five different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;132:204-10. Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Lio F, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2024;68:172-80. Siadat H, Chitsaz F, Zeighami S, Esmaeilzadeh A. Accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024;10:e857. Alkadi L. A comprehensive review of factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13:3291. Table 1 Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table1.xlsx Tab. 1. Results of the linear regression analysis between the upload speed and concordance rate for each intraoral scanner. The table summarizes the slope (β), standard error (SE), p -value, 95% confidence interval (CI), coefficient of determination (R²), and interpretation of the correlation. A significant positive correlation was observed for SIRIOS (p < 0.001, R² = 0.725) and Trios 5 (p = 0.001, R² = 0.567), while Primescan2 showed no significant correlation (p = 0.318, R² = 0.077). Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7212359","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":495314907,"identity":"8dfe4f7d-06d2-4a74-94f9-7949b570646f","order_by":0,"name":"Takahiro Murakami","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Clinical Implant Society of Japan","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Takahiro","middleName":"","lastName":"Murakami","suffix":""},{"id":495314908,"identity":"aef8dfb0-3dac-4d52-8bfc-e3ce6c27a774","order_by":1,"name":"Reo Ikumi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Clinical Implant Society of Japan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Reo","middleName":"","lastName":"Ikumi","suffix":""},{"id":495314909,"identity":"10530ce6-941a-462e-9093-93f516a55948","order_by":2,"name":"Yasuhito Momose","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Clinical Implant Society of Japan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yasuhito","middleName":"","lastName":"Momose","suffix":""},{"id":495314910,"identity":"c8121492-30ab-4879-b79d-0f60218f4d72","order_by":3,"name":"Katsuhiro Asaka","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Clinical Implant Society of Japan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Katsuhiro","middleName":"","lastName":"Asaka","suffix":""},{"id":495314911,"identity":"8ae2627e-318f-4998-b0bc-820d4397e7cc","order_by":4,"name":"Tatsuro Miyashita","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Clinical Implant Society of Japan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Tatsuro","middleName":"","lastName":"Miyashita","suffix":""},{"id":495314912,"identity":"c0ca61e6-f08c-44eb-8d09-ac3151fad93d","order_by":5,"name":"Atsushi Okada","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Clinical Implant Society of Japan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Atsushi","middleName":"","lastName":"Okada","suffix":""},{"id":495314913,"identity":"278f3c7b-c27d-4f05-ace4-5f8ed21b60e7","order_by":6,"name":"Kotaro Saka","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Clinical Implant Society of Japan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kotaro","middleName":"","lastName":"Saka","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-25 08:53:40","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7212359/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7212359/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88652004,"identity":"7ff0e8c9-d4d8-4d9d-b86a-4b1689d77ca4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:48","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":140134,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMaster model used in this study.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.1.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/d1cef405f285d4bb3b27ac94.jpg"},{"id":88652049,"identity":"5c44a8b8-48c8-4705-b7b4-c07d6cb4adf4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:49","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":70527,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eScanning sequence for the master model. (a) Scanning sequence for the alveolar ridge, (b) Scanning sequence for scan bodies.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.2.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/b106a2f776a400fd7c43fe4a.jpg"},{"id":88652055,"identity":"793fc294-fc1e-4867-8644-79fb0fb5d189","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:49","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":134638,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntraoral scanners and Wi-Fi communication devices used in this study.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.3.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/0f7e5d740438979397dded0e.jpg"},{"id":88652054,"identity":"bb60cea6-7b11-4f9b-82c0-6a308713241e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:49","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64889,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConcordance rates for the six scan bodies. Asterisk (*) indicates significant differences between groups (p \u0026lt; 0.05). Within identical distances, significant differences were noted between wireless intraoral scanners marked as follows: a and b, c and d, and among e, f, and g (p \u0026lt; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.4.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/079391d0b5e6ce7c0996e3e8.jpg"},{"id":88652059,"identity":"c4c74b59-f720-4de0-8c69-9d6d904ea947","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:49","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":223254,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConcordance rates for each scan body. Groups labeled with different letters within each graph indicate statistically significant differences (p \u0026lt; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.5.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/855c825fc1960558d8e6c511.jpg"},{"id":88652051,"identity":"ff598131-5912-4ed7-b085-73960b0cbda3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:49","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":266408,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEvaluation of color mapping.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.6.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/cf0d5cd1921d111d9675e0ad.jpg"},{"id":88652062,"identity":"a0c5a05e-e709-4c8f-abac-4d4bbba0b21c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:50","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":69640,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationship between the concordance rates for the six scan bodies and upload speeds. Each point represents an individual scan result. Regression lines and coefficients of determination (R²) are shown. A weak correlation was observed for Primescan2 (R² = 0.0766), a strong positive correlation for SIRIOS (R² = 0.725), and a moderate positive correlation for Trios 5 (R² = 0.567).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure.7.tiff.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/8d4fdb94c428e2ca174e0435.jpg"},{"id":89124053,"identity":"229bdf6f-f2cf-4ae8-b411-bf6c568c9ec3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-15 03:17:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1626437,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/2fd4ea3a-03fb-4b50-bb42-2fb2d300b5f4.pdf"},{"id":88652063,"identity":"6a61b5f0-b889-4009-be87-5863a76f11e1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-08 17:53:50","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":9882,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTab. 1. \u003c/strong\u003eResults of the linear regression analysis between the upload speed and concordance rate for each intraoral scanner. The table summarizes the slope (β), standard error (SE), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e-value, 95% confidence interval (CI), coefficient of determination (R²), and interpretation of the correlation. A significant positive correlation was observed for SIRIOS (p \u0026lt; 0.001, R² = 0.725) and Trios 5 (p = 0.001, R² = 0.567), while Primescan2 showed no significant correlation (p = 0.318, R² = 0.077).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Table1.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7212359/v1/37ef95dfda42c8723374ea85.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effect of wireless network parameters on implant position reproducibility of wireless intraoral scanners: An in vitro study","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eIntraoral scanners have become indispensable tools in modern dentistry, with applications ranging from diagnosis and treatment planning to the fabrication of prostheses and enhancement of patient engagement [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e–\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. The accuracy of these devices is a critical factor for successful clinical outcomes. While previous studies have shown that intraoral scanners provide clinically acceptable accuracy for short-span restorations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], their performance in full-arch implant cases remains debatable. Some reports have suggested limitations in full-arch scanning due to accumulated errors over long distances [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e], while others demonstrate comparable or superior accuracy of intraoral scanners to conventional methods even in such scenarios [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo date, most of these studies have focused on wired intraoral scanners. However, wireless intraoral scanners, which transfer data via Wi-Fi, have recently gained popularity due to their improved maneuverability and cleaner operatory environment. Although a few studies have compared wired and wireless scanners [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e], the effects of specific wireless communication parameters, such as Wi-Fi distance or upload speed, on scanning accuracy have not been thoroughly evaluated. Upload speed refers to the rate at which data are transmitted from the scanner to an external device or cloud storage. Unstable communication conditions—such as increased router-to-scanner distance, signal attenuation, or limited bandwidth—may cause delayed or incomplete data transmission by wireless intraoral scanners. These disruptions can impair the real-time acquisition and processing of scan images, thereby compromising the accuracy of the three-dimensional reconstruction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccurate implant position transfer is essential for the fabrication of well-fitting prostheses. Poor reproducibility may result in misfit of superstructures, which can increase the risk of mechanical complications, such as screw loosening, framework fracture, and even biological complications such as peri-implantitis and marginal bone loss. Therefore, ensuring optimal scanner performance—even under variable clinical Wi-Fi conditions—is critical to achieving long-term success in implant therapy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on these considerations, we hypothesized that greater Wi-Fi communication distances and slower upload speeds would negatively affect the implant position reproducibility of wireless intraoral scanners. Therefore, the present study aimed to assess the three-dimensional implant position reproducibility of wired and wireless intraoral scanners using an edentulous mandibular model with six implants. Furthermore, we examined how Wi-Fi communication distance and upload speed influence the accuracy of wireless intraoral scanners.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFabrication of the master model and acquisition of master dataset\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSix implants (Roxolid Tissue Level Standard Implant Ø4.1 mm RN-SLActive Loxim-10.0 mm, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) were embedded in a mandibular edentulous gypsum model at positions corresponding to 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 (FDI tooth numbering system). Subsequently, three reference bodies were attached, one each on the buccal aspect of implants at 47 and 37 regions and at the central lingual position between implants at 42 and 32 regions, completing the master model (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Scan bodies (CARES Mono Scan body RN, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) were attached to the implants, and a master dataset was acquired using a high-precision dental laboratory scanner (F8, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark, ISO 12836 accuracy: 4 µm). These scan bodies were cylindrical and made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOptical impression method using intraoral scanners\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThree wireless intraoral scanners, Primescan 2 (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA), SIRIOS (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), and Trios 5 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and one wired intraoral scanner, Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA), as a control, were used to obtain optical impressions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scanning procedure involved scanning the alveolar ridge of the master model first, following the sequence shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea. Subsequently, scan bodies were attached to each implant on the master model and scanned (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb). The alveolar ridge data and scan body data were automatically matched using dedicated software: Primescan 2: Connect Software; SIRIOS: Virtuo Vivo Software; Trios 5; 3Shape Unite; Primescan: CEREC Software).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the wireless scanners, the distances between the scanner and Wi-Fi router were set at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m. The Wi-Fi routers used were WXR18000BE10P (Buffalo Inc., Nagoya, Japan) for Primescan 2 and TP-Link Archer T9UH (TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) for SIRIOS and Trios 5 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). All obstacles within a 5.0 m radius of the scanner and Wi-Fi router were removed to minimize interference.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBased on previous studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e], five scans per condition were performed, resulting in ten groups for analysis: Primescan 2 (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m), SIRIOS (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m), Trios 5 (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m), and Primescan (wired). Therefore, a total of 50 datasets were generated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scanning environment was standardized with ambient lighting at 960 Hz (comparable to a typical dental clinic) and room temperature maintained at 25°C; all potential sources of electromagnetic interference were eliminated. The personal computers used for Primescan 2, SIRIOS, and Trios 5 were identical and equipped with DELL Precision 7680 Mobile Workstations (Dell Inc., Round Rock, TX, USA), each featuring a 13th Gen Intel® Core™ i7-13850HX vPro® processor (Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA). These standardized environmental and hardware conditions were implemented to minimize external influences on the scanning performance and ensure the reproducibility of results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll scans were performed by a single operator, a board-certified prosthodontist with 10 years of clinical experience (T.M., certified by the Japan Prosthodontic Society), to minimize operator-dependent variability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMeasurement of upload speeds of Wi-Fi routers\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach intraoral scanner was connected to a specific Wi-Fi router selected according to the manufacturer's compatibility requirements: Primescan 2 was paired with WXR18000BE10P (Buffalo Inc., Nagoya, Japan), while SIRIOS and Trios 5 used TP-Link Archer T9UH (TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China). The upload speeds between the wireless intraoral scanners and Wi-Fi routers at distances of 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m were measured five times for each condition, and average values were calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDue to software limitations and manufacturer-specific restrictions, different methods were used to measure the upload speeds. For WXR18000BE10P (used with Primescan 2), the Speedtest application by Ookla [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] was used, while for TP-Link Archer T9UH (used with SIRIOS and Trios 5), upload speeds were obtained from the Wi-Fi connection status interface of the connected PC, as the Speedtest application was not compatible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAnalysis of scanning data\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eScanning data from the master model and each intraoral scanner were imported into a three-dimensional analysis software (GOM Inspect 2020, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany). The three reference bodies attached to the master model served as reference points to align the master dataset with the intraoral scanner datasets. Subsequently, three-dimensional positional deviations of the scan bodies in each dataset relative to the master dataset were visualized using color mapping. Deviations of + 100 µm were indicated in red, ± 20 µm in green, and − 100 µm in blue, with intermediate values shown as gradients. Concordance rates were calculated by considering regions within 50 µm deviation as matching. The dataset with a concordance rate equal to the median value in each group was selected as the representative example for color mapping analysis. This approach was intended to accurately reflect typical deviation patterns within each group while minimizing visual complexity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrior to the statistical analysis, the normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Based on the results, non-parametric tests were selected. The median and interquartile range of the matching areas of the scan bodies were calculated. Differences among groups were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. When significant differences were found, pairwise comparisons were performed using the Steel–Dwass test. All the statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 22.0, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA), with the level of significance set at p \u0026lt; 0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, to illustrate the relationship between upload speed and concordance rates for the six scan bodies, scatter plots of individual values for each condition were generated. A linear regression analysis was then performed to calculate the coefficient of determination (R²). Residual diagnostics were conducted to validate the regression models: residual normality was assessed with the Shapiro–Wilk test, homoscedasticity was confirmed by visual inspection of the residual plots, and linearity between the upload speed and concordance rate was verified using scatterplot analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConcordance rates for the six scan bodies\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e shows the concordance rates for the six scan bodies for each intraoral scanner.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe median concordance rates (interquartile range) for Primescan2 were 82.3% (1.5), 82.3% (2.6), and 78.8% (5.2) at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m, respectively. For SIRIOS, the rates were 64.6% (3.5), 54.4% (4.3), and 50.4% (4.6) at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m, respectively. Trios 5 showed median concordance rates of 61.6% (19.2), 52.2% (24.0), and 29.5% (3.7) at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m. The wired control, Primescan, showed a median concordance rate of 63.5% (4.7).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis revealed significantly higher concordance rates for Primescan2 at all distances compared to Primescan (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), with no significant differences between distances for Primescan2 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). SIRIOS at 0.5 m showed significantly higher concordance rates than at 2.0 m and 5.0 m (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), but no significant differences compared to Primescan (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The concordance rates for Trios 5 at 0.5 m and Primescan were significantly higher than that for Trios at 5.0 m (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOn comparing the three wireless scanners at identical distances, Primescan2 showed significantly higher concordance rates at all distances (0.5 m, 2.0 m, 5.0 m) than SIRIOS and Trios 5 (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). A significant difference in the concordance rates between SIRIOS and Trios 5 at 5.0 m was also noted (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConcordance rates for each scan body\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e shows the concordance rates for each scan body across the four intraoral scanners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor Primescan2, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) at 0.5 m were 59.6% (14.3), 88.9% (18.8), 84.5% (16.7), 88.7% (1.4), 91.8% (5.7), and 92.6% (3.1) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 2.0 m, the rates were 78.6% (24.1), 79.5% (5.8), 83.6% (6.3), 86.7% (4.2), 88.1% (1.7), and 89.9% (0.8) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 5.0 m, the rates were 74.0% (30.0), 87.9% (32.9), 87.7% (5.2), 88.4% (8.5), 90.8% (3.6), and 85.4% (13.3) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor SIRIOS, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) at 0.5 m were 51.0% (1.2), 53.5% (0.7), 58.8% (2.5), 60.7% (9.8), 80.0% (1.6), and 86.2% (4.2) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 2.0 m, the rates were 34.5% (5.2), 45.9% (6.7), 47.0% (9.9), 54.9% (21.6), 57.7% (18.8), and 76.4% (7.3) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 5.0 m, the rates were 32.6% (14.3), 51.6% (9.2), 48.6% (4.9), 49.3% (7.4), 61.9% (23.4), and 65.5% (35.4) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor Trios 5, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) at 0.5 m were 56.4% (18.1), 55.1% (16.5), 52.9% (18.4), 55.3% (10.9), 65.1% (13.6), and 73.5% (35.6) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 2.0 m, the rates were 37.6% (25.8), 48.8% (18.6), 49.6% (27.5), 45.8% (27.2), 50.6% (12.2), and 51.1% (16.6) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively. At 5.0 m, the rates were 18.3% (4.9), 24.5% (5.9), 26.4% (20.0), 32.0% (10.8), 36.5% (4.9), and 46.4% (28.4) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor Primescan, the median concordance rates (interquartile range) were 37.2% (17.5), 67.5% (20.2), 66.9% (17.8), 66.1% (12.4), 80.1% (4.5), and 79.4% (1.9) at 47, 44, 42, 32, 34, and 37 regions, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatistical analysis revealed significant differences between concordance rates at 47 and 37 regions for Primescan2 at 0.5 m (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), but no significant regional differences at 2.0 m and 5.0 m (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). For SIRIOS at 0.5 m, significant differences were found between concordance rates at 47 region and 32, 34, and 37 regions; 44 region and 32, 34, and 37 regions; 42 region and 34 and 37 regions; and 32 region and 34 and 37 regions (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). However, no significant differences in concordance rates were observed for SIRIOS at 2.0 m and 5.0 m (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Trios 5 did not show any significant regional differences in concordance rates at any distance (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Primescan exhibited significant differences between concordance rates at 47 region and 32, 34, and 37 regions (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEvaluation of color mapping\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedian scanning data for Primescan2, SIRIOS, Trios 5, and Primescan via color mapping are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimescan2 at 0.5 m showed minimal deviation within \u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20 \u0026micro;m across scan bodies. Slightly higher deviations (+\u0026thinsp;100 \u0026micro;m) were noted at certain regions at greater distances. SIRIOS and Trios 5 showed significant deviations (+/\u0026minus;100 \u0026micro;m) distributed broadly across scan bodies at all distances, particularly pronounced at 2.0 m and 5.0 m. Primescan exhibited distinct directional deviations, notably \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;100 \u0026micro;m on the buccal side and +\u0026thinsp;100 \u0026micro;m on the lingual side for 47, 44, and 42 regions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRelationship between the concordance rates for the six scan bodies and upload speeds\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e and Table\u0026nbsp;1 demonstrate the relationship between the concordance rates for the six scan bodies and upload speeds. The average upload speeds were 186.0 Mbps (0.5 m), 150.8 Mbps (2.0 m), and 49.7 Mbps (5.0 m) for WXR18000BE10P, and 738.2 Mbps (0.5 m), 590.6 Mbps (2.0 m), and 369.1 Mbps (5.0 m) for TP-Link Archer T9UH.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLinear regression analysis yielded the following results (Table\u0026nbsp;1):\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimescan2: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0177, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.017, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.318, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.019 to 0.055, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.077 \u0026rarr; not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSIRIOS: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0369, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.006, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.023 to 0.051, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.725 \u0026rarr; strong, statistically significant positive correlation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTrios 5: β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0707, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.017, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, 95% CI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.034 to 0.108, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.567 \u0026rarr; moderate, statistically significant positive correlation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese results indicate a significant dependence on the upload speed for SIRIOS and Trios 5, while Primescan2 showed no significant correlation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to evaluate the three-dimensional reproducibility of implant positions using tissue-level implants embedded in a mandibular edentulous model, a crucial factor for the accurate fabrication of implant-supported prostheses. Tissue-level implants were specifically selected because they allow direct visual confirmation of the connection between the implant and scan body, facilitating highly accurate data acquisition. Additionally, manufacturer-certified PEEK scan bodies were used in this study, as a systematic review by Pachiou et al. indicated superior scanning accuracy with PEEK scan bodies compared to metallic ones [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIwamoto et al. investigated the performance of intraoral scanners using a permissible error threshold of 100 \u0026micro;m, which is acceptable performance for general clinical applications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, our study set a stricter permissible error threshold of 50 \u0026micro;m, which is more suitable for the precise fabrication of screw-retained superstructures. This decision was based on the findings of Wittneben et al., who reported fewer mechanical and biological complications associated with screw-retained superstructures compared to cement-retained ones [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], as well as the recommendation by Katsoulis et al. that the permissible error threshold for screw-retained prostheses should be within 50 \u0026micro;m [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough many studies employ best-fit algorithms to analyze scanning data [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR15\" citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], these algorithms optimize the overall deviation by minimizing global errors, potentially masking localized discrepancies. Consequently, this method may hinder the precise evaluation of impression accuracy, particularly regarding implant positioning, which is crucial for clinical success. To overcome this limitation, our study employed three strategically placed reference bodies attached directly to the alveolar ridge for data alignment. This approach facilitated a clinically relevant and precise evaluation of the spatial relationship between the alveolar ridge and implant positions, thereby closely reflecting actual clinical scenarios encountered during prosthetic fabrication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the concordance rates for the six scan bodies revealed that Primescan2 showed the highest implant position reproducibility across all tested distances, whereas the reproducibility of SIRIOS and Trios 5 decreased with increasing distance between the scanner and Wi-Fi device. Although Primescan2 and Primescan use similar scanning engines and algorithms, Primescan2 consistently outperformed Primescan. This improved performance is likely due to its upgraded imaging sensors, optical systems, image-processing engines, and optimized housing design. Enhanced internal calibration accuracy and thermal management during scanning may have also contributed to its stable performance. Both SIRIOS and Trios 5 at 0.5 m demonstrated implant position reproducibility comparable to that of Primescan. However, both exhibited lower concordance rates at 2.0 m and 5.0 m than Primescan. This reduction in accuracy may be attributed to their reliance on real-time data processing, which heavily depends on the hardware specifications of the connected personal computer (PC), such as processor and graphics performance, potentially leading to variations in processing speed and stability. In contrast, Primescan2 uploads data directly to DS Core, a Google Cloud-based platform by Dentsply Sirona, thereby eliminating dependence on local PC performance and ensuring consistent image reconstruction and data management. This asynchronous, cloud-based architecture buffers temporary network fluctuations, resulting in more stable and superior implant position reproducibility compared to the other wireless scanners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessment of concordance rates for individual scan bodies revealed a consistent pattern across scanners, with lower concordance rates observed at peripheral regions (e.g., positions 47 and 44) and higher rates at central regions (e.g., positions 32, 34, and 37). This pattern likely results from cumulative scanning errors during full-arch scanning. SIRIOS and Trios 5 exhibited significant region-specific deviations and directional biases, suggesting systematic errors influenced by scanning direction and software algorithms. In contrast, Primescan2 displayed minimal deviations (\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20 \u0026micro;m), highlighting its stable and precise scanning capabilities. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution when applied to clinical practice, as previous studies have demonstrated that factors, such as operator experience, patient movement, intraoral humidity, and limited mouth opening, can significantly influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. These variables were not accounted for in this \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e study and may lead to greater variability in the implant position reproducibility in clinical settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegression analysis revealed that upload speed significantly correlated with implant position reproducibility for SIRIOS (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.725) and Trios 5 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.567), indicating substantial dependency on stable, high-speed Wi-Fi environments. In contrast, Primescan2 revealed no statistically significant correlation (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.318, \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 0.077), demonstrating its ability to maintain high implant position reproducibility even at lower upload speeds. This suggests that cloud-based architecture and asynchronous data transmission used by Primescan2 may provide superior clinical flexibility regardless of the network conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study demonstrated that wireless intraoral scanners can achieve implant position reproducibility comparable to or even superior to wired scanners under optimal Wi-Fi conditions, several limitations should be noted. First, the \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e master model used in this study does not fully replicate intraoral conditions, such as the presence of saliva, soft tissue dynamics, reflective surfaces, and spatial constraints. Second, only two Wi-Fi routers were evaluated, and more recent technologies, such as Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7, were not included. This may have affected the generalizability of the findings. Third, different methods were used to measure the upload speeds for the two routers due to software compatibility issues, potentially introducing measurement bias. Although actual upload speeds were used for regression analysis to reflect real-world conditions, the lack of a standardized measurement method limits the internal validity of the results. Fourth, technical network parameters, such as latency, frame rate, and packet loss, were not assessed, which may influence scanner performance under unstable Wi-Fi conditions and limit mechanistic interpretations. Finally, scan acquisition order was not randomized, and the operator was not blinded to the experimental conditions. Although all scans were performed by a single, board-certified prosthodontist to reduce operator-dependent variability, the lack of randomization and blinding may have introduced procedural bias and should be acknowledged as a methodological limitation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research should aim to validate these findings in clinical settings or \u003cem\u003ein vitro\u003c/em\u003e models that simulate soft tissue and salivary conditions more realistically. To further improve measurement accuracy, standardized tools and protocols should be used across all network configurations. Evaluating the impact of advanced communication protocols (e.g., Wi-Fi 6E, Wi-Fi 7) and conducting technical analyses of latency and data loss will be essential for understanding performance under diverse network environments. Clinically, we recommend positioning Wi-Fi routers within 2 meters of the scanning area, avoiding physical obstructions, and utilizing high-performance routers. In terms of data analysis, future studies should incorporate additional accuracy metrics beyond the concordance rate within 50 \u0026micro;m, such as root mean square error, axis-specific deviations (X, Y, Z), and vector analysis, to capture spatial and directional discrepancies more comprehensively. Furthermore, interaction effects between the scanner type and variables, such as Wi-Fi distance or implant region, should be evaluated using two-way analysis of variance or similar analytical methods to identify potential performance patterns or degradation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the impact of Wi-Fi communication factors on the reproducibility of implant positions using wireless intraoral scanners. Under the experimental conditions of this study, Primescan2 demonstrated minimal sensitivity to changes in Wi-Fi communication distance and upload speeds, exhibiting superior implant position reproducibility compared to Primescan. In contrast, SIRIOS and Trios 5 showed reduced reproducibility with increasing distance from the Wi-Fi source.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eIOS\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eintraoral scanner\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003ePC\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epersonal computer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eWi-Fi\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ewireless fidelity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ecoefficient of determination\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and material:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e The authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors’ contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTMurakami acquired and interpreted the experimental data. RI, YM, KA,TMiyashita, AO, and KS assisted with the acquisition and interpretation of the experimental data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTanaka J, Murakami T, Tanaka S, Kanno T, Imada Y. Accuracy of implant-supported copy overdentures fabricated using either an intraoral scanner and a 3D printer or the conventional copy denture technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37:989-96.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAngelone F, Ponsiglione AM, Ricciardi C, Cesarelli G, Sansone M, Amato F. Diagnostic applications of intraoral scanners: A systematic review. J Imaging. 2023;9:134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrymovskyy KG, Zhehulovych ZE, Storozhenko KV, Babaskin YI. Nowadays and the future of the 3D digital technologies in modern orthodontics. Wiad Lek. 2024;77:2047-56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePesce P, Nicolini P, Caponio VCA, Zecca PA, Canullo L, Isola G, et al. Accuracy of full-arch intraoral scans versus conventional impression: a systematic review with a meta-analysis and a proposal to standardise the analysis of the accuracy. J Clin Med. 2024;14:71.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaundu CN, Osiro OA, Nyaga JM. Marginal fit of single-crown and three-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated from digital and conventional impressions: an in vitro cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2024;16:e73408.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61:450-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNatsubori R, Fukazawa S, Chiba T, Tanabe N, Kihara H, Kondo H. In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants. Int J Implant Dent. 2022;8:18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIwamoto M, Atsuta W, Kaneko Y, Ito J, Kanno T, Murakami T, et al. Investigating the implant position reproducibility of optical impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner and 3D-printed models fabricated using an intraoral scanner. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;9:14.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eD\u0026ouml;nmez MB, \u0026Ccedil;akmak G, Schimmel M, Bayadse M, Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. Scan accuracy of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners in different fixed partial denture situations. J Dent. 2025;153:105558.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeedtest by Ookla. https://www.speedtest.net/. Accessed 27 June 2025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePachiou A, Zervou E, Tsirogiannis P, Sykaras N, Tortopidis D, Kourtis S. Characteristics of intraoral scan bodies and their influence on impression accuracy: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35:1205-17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWittneben JG, Millen C, Br\u0026auml;gger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:84-98.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKatsoulis J, Takeichi T, Gaviria AS, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl:121-38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAzevedo L, Marques T, Karasan D, Fehmer V, Sailer I, Correia A, et al. Effect of splinting scan bodies on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans with five different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;132:204-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePozzi A, Agliardi E, Lio F, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2024;68:172-80.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiadat H, Chitsaz F, Zeighami S, Esmaeilzadeh A. Accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024;10:e857.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlkadi L. A comprehensive review of factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13:3291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Wireless intraoral scanner, Implant position reproducibility, Optical impression, Wi-Fi distance, Upload speed","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7212359/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7212359/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003ePurpose\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe impact of wireless communication on intraoral scanning accuracy remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the implant position reproducibility of wireless and wired intraoral scanners and assess the effects of wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) communication distance and upload speed on wireless intraoral scanners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn edentulous model with six implants was used as the master model and scanned using a high-accuracy scanner. Optical impressions were obtained using wireless intraoral scanners (Primescan2, SIRIOS, Trios 5) and a wired scanner (Primescan). For wireless scanners, the distance to the Wi-Fi router was set at 0.5 m, 2.0 m, and 5.0 m, with scans performed at each distance. Primescan was scanned as a control. The master and intraoral scan data were superimposed using analysis software and evaluated through three-dimensional analysis. Implant position reproducibility was expressed as the concordance rate, defined as the percentage of surface area within a 50 \u0026micro;m deviation from the master data. The correlation between upload speed and reproducibility was also analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimescan2 maintained high concordances rates (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;78%) across all distances and demonstrated superior reproducibility compared to that of other scanners. SIRIOS and Trios 5 exhibited reduced concordance with increasing distance. A positive correlation was found between the upload speed and concordance rate for SIRIOS (R\u0026sup2; = 0.72) and Trios 5 (R\u0026sup2; = 0.57).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimescan2 was least affected by the communication distance or upload speed and demonstrated higher reproducibility than Primescan. However, SIRIOS and Trios 5 demonstrated reduced reproducibility with increasing Wi-Fi distance.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of wireless network parameters on implant position reproducibility of wireless intraoral scanners: An in vitro study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-08 17:53:29","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7212359/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"b33e8f8c-eb9b-4a8d-80de-56ddcdd85089","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-15T03:09:24+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-08 17:53:29","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7212359","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7212359","identity":"rs-7212359","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}