CSS|Strategy
The rigid structure created a more continuous scanning path for PrimeScan and was intended to reduce scan interruptions and the subsequent stitching of fragments.
Clinical case · Scan Transfer
How acquisition and full-arch validation were separated in one case.
The published case by Polito and Palladino shows a concrete use of rigidly connected scanning references. The key is not to “splint every time”, but to know exactly which error a given step is intended to control.
How to read this case
The case report is a map of decisions, not a universal protocol.
De|Bug
After the rigid assembly was transferred to the laboratory, a plaster verification key/model was created and the scan was repeated extraorally as an independent check of the positions.
Re|Scan was not used
The authors did not need it in this case because access and mouth opening allowed reliable intraoral acquisition.
Case sequence
From planning and position verification to the definitive restoration.
1
Digital planning and guided surgery
The edentulous patient was planned in Implant 3D, surgery was performed using Stackable Guides, and five implants were placed.
2
Model and prosthetic relationships before the definitive phase
With delayed loading, a model derived from the surgical plan was used to verify aesthetics, mastication and vertical dimension.
3
Rigid PMMA arch and CSS|Strategy
A laboratory-milled PMMA arch rigidly connected the Scan Transfer references. The authors scanned it with PrimeScan along a continuous path without intentional interruption.
4
Laboratory De|Bug verification
After physical delivery of the rigid assembly, a plaster verification key/model was created. The scan was repeated in the laboratory and any small discrepancies were corrected according to the laboratory-verified positions.
5
Definitive restoration and clinical verification
After implant positions were confirmed, the titanium framework was designed and milled, followed by functional and clinical validation.
What is most valuable in this case
The same data should not be their own only judge.
If both acquisition and its “verification” arise within the same chain and by the same method, a systematic error can survive. De|Bug adds a physical verification channel; ScanLogiQ now addresses a similar problem by another route, through repeated independent acquisitions and software evaluation of consistency.
A useful perspective: Scan Transfer and ScanLogiQ should therefore not be viewed as “older and newer scan bodies”. They are two different verification architectures for full-arch risk.
Image sequence
The clinical and laboratory phases complement each other.
What the case supports
Practical implications
- Distinguish local scan-body readability from the global topography of the arch.
- Choose the protocol according to the specific source of risk.
- Separate data acquisition from independent verification of those data.
- Use Re|Scan only when it addresses a genuine access or acquisition problem.
What we do not claim from this case
Limitations
- This is not a randomised clinical trial or a direct comparison of technologies.
- It cannot be used to conclude that splinting by itself always improves trueness.
- The result depends on the scanner, rigidity of the assembly, library, data alignment and manufacturing chain.
- The passive fit of the definitive restoration must ultimately be confirmed by clinical verification.
Original source
Industry Report: Multi-dimensionality of errors in intraoral scan
Francesco Polito, Nicola Palladino. The source document describes the multidimensional nature of intraoral-scan errors, Scan Transfer and the clinical use of the CSS|Strategy, De|Bug and Re|Scan protocols.
Where to continue