Does the Brand on Your Scan Body Actually Matter? A Clinical Trial Says Probably Not
A clinical trial of 75 implant-supported fixed dental prostheses finds that generic and non-original scan bodies produce clinically equivalent restorations and statistically indistinguishable implant position transfers compared to original brand-matched scan bodies — suggesting the aftermarket option is a legitimate choice in the complete digital workflow.
Source Paper
Comparison of fixed dental prostheses digitally fabricated using various scan bodies: a clinical study
Generic medications, aftermarket car parts, third-party printer cartridges: in every industry where brand-matched originals compete with compatible alternatives, the same argument recurs. The manufacturer insists the branded version is irreplaceable; the independent supplier insists its product is functionally identical; and the buyer, caught between the two, eventually makes a pragmatic call. Dentistry’s digital implant workflow has its own version of this tension, in the form of the scan body. Fatmanur Demir Boz and Kivanc Akca at Hacettepe University in Ankara have now brought clinical data to that argument. Their paper, “Comparison of fixed dental prostheses digitally fabricated using various scan bodies: a clinical study,” published in The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics in 2025, asks directly: does the brand on the scan body actually matter when the restoration is being fabricated?
The Data Anchor
This prospective clinical trial enrolled 19 patients with posterior partially edentulous sites, each carrying two osseointegrated bone-level Straumann implants (BLT/BL; RC/NC). The study population supported 50 implants across 25 edentulous sites, yielding 75 PMMA fixed dental prostheses: 25 for each scan body type. The three scan bodies were the original (CARES Mono Scanbody; Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), a non-original (Scanbody L-Series; Medentika GmbH, Hügelsheim, Germany), and a generic (3Shape Scanbodies; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). All scans were acquired with a TRIOS3 intraoral scanner using a standardised two-stage full-arch protocol by a single investigator. Implant axes were quantified three-dimensionally via reverse engineering software (Geomagic Design X), and clinical delivery conditions were assessed at 2.5x loupe magnification using standardised occlusal and proximal grading criteria.
Statistical analysis used chi-square testing for clinical outcomes and generalised estimating equations for implant axes, with significance set at P < .05.
Key Findings
- All 75 restorations were clinically deliverable. No restoration required replacement for proximal contacts, occlusal relationships, or implant connection across any of the three scan body types.
- Clinical delivery conditions did not differ significantly between scan body brands (P > .05 for proximal and occlusal contacts in both jaws).
- Implant position transfer was equivalent. Non-original and generic scan bodies showed no statistically significant differences in X, Y, or Z implant axes compared to the original, for mesial and distal implants in both jaws (P > .05 for all comparisons).
- Material and geometry were not decisive. Differences in scan body construction (PEEK, PEEK-titanium, or aluminium; one- or two-piece; bevelled, flat, or polygonal reference area) did not produce measurable differences in clinical or analytical outcomes.
- Limitations: PMMA was used rather than definitive restorative materials, potentially overestimating fit given its higher elasticity. The study was single-centre, unblinded (the visually distinct scan bodies precluded blinding), and limited to short-span FDPs. Generalisation to full-arch rehabilitation or longer spans awaits further evidence.
💡 The Clinical Bottom Line
The short answer is: not in any clinically meaningful way. For short-span posterior FDPs through a complete digital workflow, scan body brand appears to be a less consequential variable than scanning protocol discipline and operator experience. The two-stage full-arch approach used here (arch sweep first, individual scan body scan second, with rigorous quality checks for deformation-free geometry) may be the more important variable; it produced consistent results regardless of which scan body was fitted.
The scope caveat applies: short-span cases in a university setting are not full-arch rehabilitations, and cumulative position transfer errors in complex multi-implant cases remain an open question.
Clinicians paying premium prices for brand-matched scan bodies can reasonably consider compatible alternatives, provided CAD library files are accessible and the scanning protocol is disciplined. The aftermarket, it turns out, is not always the compromise it is assumed to be.
Dr Samuel Rosehill is a general dentist with a prosthodontic focus, practising at Ethical Dental in Coffs Harbour, NSW. He holds a BDSc (Hons) from the University of Queensland, an MBA, an MMktg, and an MClinDent in Fixed & Removable Prosthodontics (Distinction) from King’s College London.
Clinical Relevance
Original, non-original, and generic scan bodies with different hardware and software characteristics produced clinically equivalent short-span implant-supported FDPs when used with a two-stage full-arch scanning protocol. Clinicians can use compatible third-party scan bodies in the complete digital workflow without compromising clinical delivery conditions or implant position transfer accuracy.
Disclosure: The author has no financial conflicts of interest related to the products or topics discussed in this review. This is an independent summary prepared for educational purposes.
Continue the conversation
This review is also published on Substack, where you can leave comments and join the discussion.
Read on Substack →