CSS|Strategy
Rigidly connected references create a clearer and more continuous path. The aim is to reduce situations in which the scanner loses orientation and has to “stitch” the 3D image again.
IPD Scan Transfer · full-arch workflow on MUA
A physical reference pathway for full-arch scanning.
Scan Transfer is not a universal “more accurate scan body”. It is a solution for cases at Multi-Unit abutments (MUA)where the aim is to simplify the scan path, connect references and, when needed, create an independent physical verification of implant positions.
Decision point
Choose the verification strategy first. Only then choose the component.
New evidence gives Scan Transfer a more precise place within the overall ecosystem. The product is intended for MUA connections and is useful when a physical reference structure addresses a specific case risk. If the clinical team achieves predictable implant-level results without MUA, there is no reason to add Scan Transfer simply because it exists.
MUA + need for a physical referenceScan Transfer: rigid connection, a more continuous scan path, the option of laboratory verification and extraoral rescanning.
MUA + repeated digital validationScanLogiQ: controlled repeated acquisitions with Scan Flag iQ and consistency assessment in AssistLogiQ.
Without MUA, with a reliable implant-level workflowStandard IPD scan bodies: Scan Transfer has no separate indication here. Complete exposure of the reference geometry, the correct library and a validated workflow are decisive.
Important correction to an earlier interpretation: splinting itself is not an automatic guarantee of greater scan trueness. The value of Scan Transfer lies in the complete verification architecture, not merely in the presence of a splint.
Three protocols, three different tasks
CSS|Strategy, De|Bug and Re|Scan are not synonyms.
De|Bug
The rigid assembly is used to create a physical key or model. The laboratory therefore gains an additional verification channel outside the original intraoral acquisition.
Re|Scan
The reliable part of the record is acquired intraorally; the problematic part can be captured or repeated extraorally under more controlled conditions.
Scan Transfer vs. ScanLogiQ
Two verification architectures for the same risk.
Both solutions address accumulated deviations in a long edentulous arch. They differ in how they how create verification.
| Question | Scan Transfer | ScanLogiQ |
|---|---|---|
| Main principle | A rigid physical reference and transfer between the intraoral and laboratory environments. | Repeated independent scans with software assessment of their consistency. |
| Working level | Multi-Unit abutments. | MUA platform supported by the ScanLogiQ system. |
| Verification | CSS, physical key/model and, where appropriate, extraoral Re|Scan. | 4× Scan Flag iQ + AssistLogiQ, followed by clinical verification. |
| Where it is strongest | When we want to physically connect references, shorten a problematic scan path or involve the laboratory in independent verification. | When we want standardised repeated digital acquisition and an immediate decision based on data agreement. |
Neither digital strategy replaces clinical verification of seating and passive fit of the definitive restoration.
Why a physical reference makes sense
A locally correct scan body does not yet validate the whole arch.
An error can arise between individual references during image stitching. Scan Transfer therefore addresses more than the geometry of one scan body: it creates a relationship across the arch and, depending on the selected protocol, adds another verification layer.
Practical workflow
From planning to a verifiable data set.
1
Plan the prosthetic outcome and working level
Decide whether the case genuinely works at MUA level and which risk Scan Transfer is intended to address: the scan path, physical verification or a difficult area.
2
Create a rigid reference structure without internal stress
The connection must not alter the relative positions of the scan bodies during polymerisation, milling or handling.
3
Choose CSS, De|Bug or Re|Scan according to the level of risk
This is not a mandatory three-part sequence. In the published clinical case, CSS and De|Bug were used, while Re|Scan was not required because access was good.
4
Verify agreement before CAM and clinical passive fit after manufacturing
Digital and physical validation should capture a problem before definitive manufacturing. Seating of the final restoration is ultimately confirmed clinically.
Visual example
The reference structure must be readable by the scanner and usable for verification.
Clinical case
In the published case, verification was not a single step but a chain.
Five implants, planning, a rigid PMMA arch, intraoral scanning with PrimeScan, a physical laboratory key and a repeated scan to confirm positions. This sequence shows why it is useful to separate acquisition od validation.
What the case does not show
This is not a randomised clinical trial and does not prove that a rigid splint always improves every scan. It is a clinical-laboratory demonstration of a specific risk-control system.
Related professional content
