Impact of Scannable Healing Abutment Type on the Accuracy of Implant Impression

Objectives The objectives of this study are to determine whether scannable healing abutment (SHA) geometry affects implant‐impression accuracy compared with conventional scan bodies (SBs) and to assess the effect of a detachable cap on SHA accuracy. Methods Three partially edentulous mandibular models were fabricated, each with two implants at the right second premolar and first molar, corresponding to three implant systems: IS‐III active (Neobiotech), TS‐III (Osstem), and Bright tissue level (Dentium). For each system, scans were obtained with SBs and SHAs; in the Bright system, a detachable‐cap SHA (SHAC‐B) was additionally tested. The seven groups were SB‐I, SB‐T, SB‐B, SHA‐I, SHA‐T, SHA‐B, and SHAC‐B ( n = 10 scans per group). Reference datasets were acquired with a laboratory scanner (inEos X5), and intraoral scans were obtained with an intraoral scanner (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona). Implants were reconstructed in exocad Dental CAD 2.2 and analyzed in Geomagic Control X after best fit alignment to adjacent teeth. Outcomes were 3D linear and implant angular deviations. Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests compared SBs with SHAs within each system and SHA‐B with SHAC‐B; differences among SHA‐I, SHA‐T, and SHA‐B were assessed with Kruskal–Wallis tests and Bonferroni‐adjusted pairwise comparisons ( α = 0.05). Results 3D linear deviations were < 70 μ m for all groups except SHAC‐B. For 3D linear deviation, p values (second premolar, first molar) were 0.017, 0.139 (SB‐I vs. SHA‐I); 0.005, 0.013 (SB‐T vs. SHA‐T); and 0.241, 0.169 (SB‐B vs. SHA‐B). Corresponding angular p values were 0.005, 0.005; 0.005, 0.005; and 0.074, 0.017, respectively. In the Bright system, adding a cap (SHA‐B vs. SHAC‐B) reduced accuracy (linear 0.009, 0.037; angular 0.005, 0.005). Among SHA groups, differences occurred only at the second premolar, where SHA‐B differed from SHA‐I and SHA‐T; no differences were observed at the first molar. Conclusions SHA geometry influenced implant‐impression accuracy, yet deviations were generally within clinically acceptable ranges. Cap application reduced accuracy, highlighting the need to optimize cap design and connection.