Accuracy of Implant Level Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry Impression Techniques in a Complete Arch with Angled and Parallel Implants: An In Vitro Study
Source abstract
Abstract
(1) Background: Stereophotogrammetry has recently been investigated showing high accuracy in complete implant supported cases but has scarcely been investigated in cases of tilted implants. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impression techniques (intraoral scanning and photogrammetry) at the level of intraoral scan bodies in terms of angular deviations and 3D discrepancies. (2) Methods: A stone master cast representing an edentulous maxilla using four implant analogs was fabricated. The two anterior implants were parallel to each other, and the two posterior implants were at an angulation of 17 degrees. Digital intraoral scanning (DIOS) impressions were taken after connecting implant level scan bodies to the master cast and STL files were exported (n = 15). Digital photogrammetry (DPG) impressions were captured using a PiC Camera after tightening implant level PiC optical markers and STL files were exported (n = 15). Superimposition was carried out by a software for determining the accuracy of both. (3) Results: Significant angular discrepancies (ΔA) and 3D deviations of scan bodies were found among the groups in trueness with lower deviations for the DPG (p value < 0.001). However, trueness within ISBs varied between angular and 3D deviations and outcomes were not specific to determine the effect of implant angulation. In precision, no significant differences were detected within ISBs and among both groups in terms of angular deviation. However, DPG had less deviations than DIOS group in terms of 3D deviations (p value < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: Digital photogrammetry technique conveyed the utmost accuracy in both trueness and precision for the intraoral scan bodies among both impression methods assessed. In addition, implant angulation did not influence the precision of the impression techniques but affected their trueness without explicit conclusions.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut 1107, Lebanon
Department of Prosthodontics and Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut 1107, Lebanon
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut 1107, Lebanon
School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast 4000, Australia
Faculty of Dental Medicine, Lebanese University, Beirut 1107, Lebanon
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: A systematic review10.1111/cid.12310 ↗
2. Digital technology in fixed implant prosthodontics10.1111/prd.12164 ↗
3. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x ↗
4. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry. A systematic review10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029 ↗
5. Pyo, S.W., Kim, D.J., Han, J.S., and Yeo, I.L. (2020). Ceramic materials and technologies applied to digital works in implant-supported restorative dentistry. Materials, 13.10.3390/ma13081964 ↗
6. Marginal adaptation and CAD-CAM technology: A systematic review of restorative material and fabrication techniques10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.001 ↗
7. Clinical advantages of computer-guided implant placement: A systematic review10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02545.x ↗
8. Accuracy of implant placement with computer-guided surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cadaver, clinical, and in vitro studies10.11607/jomi.5556 ↗
9. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: An in vitro and in vivo comparison10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2 ↗
10. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: A systematic review10.1093/ejo/cjw033 ↗
11. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth10.11607/jomi.3343 ↗
12. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: Effect of implant angulation and connection type10.1155/2018/3761750 ↗
13. Carneiro Pereira, A.L., Medeiros, V.R., and da Fonte Porto Carreiro, A. (2020). Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent.10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.008 ↗
14. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001 ↗
15. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner
16. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.003 ↗
17. Intraoral digital scans: Part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.004 ↗
18. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: Effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch10.11607/jomi.6855 ↗
19. A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies-an experimental approach10.1111/jopr.12362 ↗
20. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010 ↗
21. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters10.11607/jomi.3689 ↗
22. Using intraoral scanning to capture complete denture impressions, tooth positions, and centric relation records10.11607/ijp.5741 ↗
23. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460 ↗
24. Petriceks, A.H., Peterson, A.S., Angeles, M., Brown, W.P., and Srivastava, S. (2018). Photogrammetry of human specimens: An innovation in anatomy education. J. Med. Educ. Curric. Dev., 5.10.1177/2382120518799356 ↗
25. Photogrammetry-an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study
26. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: Description of technique and case presentation
27. A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: A randomized controlled pilot clinical trial
28. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants10.14219/jada.2013.45 ↗
29. Maxillary Full-Arch Immediately Loaded Implant-Supported Fixed Prosthesis Designed and Produced by Photogrammetry and Digital Printing: A Clinical Report10.1111/jopr.12364 ↗
30. Stereophotogrammetry for Recording the Position of Multiple Implants: Technical Description10.11607/ijp.4146 ↗
31. Photogrammetry Impression Technique: A Case History Report10.11607/ijp.4287 ↗
32. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique
33. Photogrammetric and intraoral digital impression technique for the rehabilitation of multiple unfavorably positioned dental implants: A clinical report10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00140 ↗
34. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.005 ↗
35. Sallorenzo, A., and Gómez-Polo, M. (2021). Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J. Prosthet. Dent.10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.032 ↗
36. Tohme, H., Lawand, G., Chmielewska, M., and Makhzoume, J. (2021). Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent.
37. ISO 5725-1 (1994). Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measuring Methods and Results. Part-I: General Principles and Definitions, Beuth Verlag GmbH.
38. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 ↗
39. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review of clinical studies10.11607/ijp.6468 ↗
40. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection
41. Mangano, F.G., Hauschild, U., Veronesi, G., Imburgia, M., Mangano, C., and Admakin, O. (2019). Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health, 19.10.1186/s12903-019-0792-7 ↗
42. Quantitative analysis of tooth surface loss associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: A longitudinal clinical study10.14219/jada.archive.2012.0153 ↗
43. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.012 ↗
44. Kim, R.J., Benic, G.I., and Park, J.M. (2019). Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position. PLoS ONE, 14.10.1101/744995 ↗
45. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-An in vitro study10.1111/clr.13549 ↗
46. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans10.1111/cid.12821 ↗
47. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: Accuracy outcomes10.1111/clr.12567 ↗
48. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: A comparative study10.1111/clr.12994 ↗
49. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? e Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014 ↗
50. Abutment misfit in implant-supported prostheses manufactured by casting technique: An integrative review10.4103/ejd.ejd_162_17 ↗