journal article·2025-07-18Open access

Trueness of Implant Positioning Using Intraoral Scanning and Dental Photogrammetry for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Study

João Carlos Faria, Manuel António Sampaio-Fernandes, Susana João Oliveira, Rodrigo Malheiro, João Carlos Sampaio-Fernandes, Maria Helena Figueiral

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 14

Abstract

This in vitro study aims to compare the trueness of digital impressions obtained using two intraoral scanners (IOS) and one photogrammetry device for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations. According to the Caramês Classification I, three models were produced with Straumann implants arranged in different spatial distributions: Option A with six implants and Options B and C with four implants each. The three models were scanned using a 12-megapixel scanner to create digital master casts. For each reference model, 30 digital impressions were acquired: 10 with the 3Shape Trios 3 intraoral scanner, 10 with the Medit i500 intraoral scanner, and 10 with the PIC Dental photogrammetry device. Trueness was assessed through best-fit superimpositions between the digital master casts and the corresponding virtual models. The Shapiro–Wilk test was applied to assess the normality of the data distribution, and Levene’s test was used to evaluate the homogeneity of variances. The non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was employed to compare group differences, with post hoc adjustments made using the Bonferroni correction. A significance threshold of p = 0.05 was adopted for all statistical tests. Statistically significant differences were observed in the root mean square values among the three devices. The Medit i500 demonstrated the highest trueness, with a median (interquartile range) deviation of 24.45 (18.18) µm, whereas the PIC Dental exhibited the lowest trueness, with a median deviation of 49.45 (9.17) µm. Among the implant distribution, the Option C showed the best trueness, with a median deviation of 19.00 (27.83). Considering the results of this in vitro study, intraoral scanners demonstrated comparable trueness, whereas the photogrammetry-based system exhibited lower trueness values. Additionally, a smaller number of implants and reduced inter-implant distances were associated with improved trueness in digital impressions for full-arch implant rehabilitation.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental Research and COVID-19

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Manuel Pereira da Silva, 4200-393 Porto, Portugal

Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-003 Lisbon, Portugal

Instituto de Ciência e Inovação em Engenharia Mecânica e Engenharia Industrial (INEGI), Universidade do Porto, Campus da FEUP, R. Dr. Roberto Frias 400, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

References (56)

Show source-provided references
1. Digital vs. Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Comparative Study10.1111/clr.12994 ↗
2. Improved Scanning Accuracy with Newly Designed Scan Bodies: An in Vitro Study Comparing Digital versus Conventional Impression Techniques for Complete-arch Implant Rehabilitation10.1111/clr.13598 ↗
3. Conventional versus Digital Dental Impression Techniques: What Is the Future? An Umbrella Review10.3390/prosthesis5030060 ↗
4. Accuracy of Intraoral Optical Scan versus Stereophotogrammetry for Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: An in Vitro Study10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00251 ↗
5. Jivănescu, A., Bara, A., Faur, A.-B., and Rotar, R.N. (2021). Is There a Significant Difference in Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners for Short-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis? A Comparative In Vitro Study. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11188280 ↗
6. Ma, B., Yue, X., Sun, Y., Peng, L., and Geng, W. (2021). Accuracy of Photogrammetry, Intraoral Scanning, and Conventional Impression Techniques for Complete-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An in Vitro Comparative Study. BMC Oral Health, 21.10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0 ↗
7. Accuracy of an Intraoral Digital Impression: A Review10.4103/jips.jips_327_19 ↗
8. Imburgia, M., Logozzo, S., Hauschild, U., Veronesi, G., Mangano, C., and Mangano, F.G. (2017). Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. BMC Oral Health, 17.10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4 ↗
9. Mangano, F., Gandolfi, A., Luongo, G., and Logozzo, S. (2017). Intraoral Scanners in Dentistry: A Review of the Current Literature. BMC Oral Health, 17.10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x ↗
10. Accuracy of Implant Impressions for Partially and Completely Edentulous Patients: A Systematic Review10.11607/jomi.3625 ↗
11. Accuracy of Implant-Supported Prostheses in the Edentulous Jaw: Analysis of Precision of Fit between Cast Gold-Alloy Frameworks and Master Casts by Means of a Three-Dimensional Photogrammetric Technique10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060306.x ↗
12. In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant-Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x ↗
13. Michelinakis, G., Apostolakis, D., Kamposiora, P., Papavasiliou, G., and Özcan, M. (2021). The Direct Digital Workflow in Fixed Implant Prosthodontics: A Narrative Review. BMC Oral Health, 21.10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2 ↗
14. The Significance of Passive Framework Fit in Implant Prosthodontics: Current Status10.1097/00008505-200104000-00003 ↗
15. Occlusal Considerations in Implant Therapy: Clinical Guidelines with Biomechanical Rationale10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x ↗
16. Accuracy of Digital Complete-Arch, Multi-Implant Scans Made in the Edentulous Jaw with Gingival Movement Simulation: An in Vitro Study10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.037 ↗
17. Full Arch Digital Scanning Systems Performances for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Comparative Study of 8 Intraoral Scanners10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002 ↗
18. Evaluation of Complete-Arch Implant Scanning with 5 Different Intraoral Scanners in Terms of Trueness and Operator Experience10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013 ↗
19. Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions with Intraoral Scanners
20. Continuous Scan Strategy (CSS): A Novel Technique to Improve the Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions
21. 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 ↗
22. (2023). Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and results—Part 1: General Principles and Definitions (Standard No. ISO 5725-1:2023).
23. Trueness and Precision of Digital Implant Impressions by Intraoral Scanners: A Literature Review10.1186/s40729-021-00352-9 ↗
24. Sampaio-Fernandes, M.A., Pinto, R., Almeida, P.R., Sampaio-Fernandes, M.M., Marques, D., and Figueiral, M.H. (2023). Accuracy of Extraoral Digital Impressions with Multi-Unit Implants. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13158769 ↗
25. Accuracy and Practicality of Intraoral Scanner in Dentistry: A Literature Review10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.010 ↗
26. Stereophotogrammetric Impression Making for Polyoxymethylene, Milled Immediate Partial Fixed Dental Prostheses10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.04.029 ↗
27. Photogrammetry Technology in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.015 ↗
28. Accuracy of 2 Direct Digital Scanning Techniques—Intraoral Scanning and Stereophotogrammetry—For Complete Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses: A Prospective Study10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.033 ↗
29. Fernandes, J.C., Sampaio-Fernandes, M.A., Oliveira, S.J., Malheiro, R., Sampaio-Fernandes, J.C., and Figueiral, M.H. (2025). Precision of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanning in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Appl. Sci., 15.10.3390/app15031388 ↗
30. 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 ↗
31. A Comprehensive Classification to Full Arch Implant Rehabilitation
32. Confocal 3D Optical Intraoral Scanners and Comparison of Image Capturing Accuracy
33. Comparison of Measured Deviations in Digital Implant Scans Depending on Software and Operator10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104154 ↗
34. Bud, E.S., Bocanet, V.I., Muntean, M.H., Vlasa, A., Păcurar, M., Zetu, I.N., Soporan, B.I., and Bud, A. (2022). Extra-Oral Three-Dimensional (3D) Scanning Evaluation of Three Different Impression Materials—An In Vitro Study. Polymers, 14.10.3390/polym14173678 ↗
35. Accuracy of Silicone Impressions and Stone Models Using Two Laboratory Scanners: A 3D Evaluation10.11607/ijp.8074 ↗
36. Digital Scanning for Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.014 ↗
37. Comparison of Different Artificial Landmarks and Scanning Patterns on the Complete-Arch Implant Intraoral Digital Scans10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104266 ↗
38. Photogrammetric Method to Measure the Discrepancy between Clinical and Software-Designed Positions of Implants10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.017 ↗
39. Effect of Supramucosal Height of a Scan Body and Implant Angulation on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning: An In Vitro Study10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.018 ↗
40. Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016 ↗
41. Accuracy of Complete-Arch Dental Impressions: A New Method of Measuring Trueness and Precision10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 ↗
42. Precision of Intraoral Digital Dental Impressions with ITero and Extraoral Digitization with the ITero and a Model Scanner10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017 ↗
43. Comparison between Stereophotogrammetric, Digital, and Conventional Impression Techniques in Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Arch Prostheses: An in Vitro Study10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006 ↗
44. Prosthodontic Problems and Limitations Associated with Osseointegration10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70197-0 ↗
45. Loose Gold Screws Frequently Occur in Full-Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported by Osseointegrated Implants after 5 Years
46. Full-arch Implant Fixed Prostheses: A Comparative Study on the Effect of Connection Type and Impression Technique on Accuracy of Fit10.1111/clr.12695 ↗
47. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae10.1111/jopr.13162 ↗
48. Intraoral Scan Bodies in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029 ↗
49. The Effect of Scanner Type and Scan Body Position on the Accuracy of Complete-arch Digital Implant Scans10.1111/cid.12919 ↗
50. Accuracy of Digital Technologies for the Scanning of Facial, Skeletal, and Intraoral Tissues: A Systematic Review10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.015 ↗
51. Effect of Scanner Type and Scan Body Location on the Accuracy of Mandibular Complete-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study10.1111/jopr.13418 ↗
52. The Effect of Scanning the Palate and Scan Body Position on the Accuracy of Complete-arch Implant Scans10.1111/cid.12821 ↗
53. Comparison of Digital Intraoral Scanner Reproducibility and Image Trueness Considering Repetitive Experience10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002 ↗
54. Zotti, F., Rosolin, L., Bersani, M., Poscolere, A., Pappalardo, D., and Zerman, N. (2022). Digital Dental Models: Is Photogrammetry an Alternative to Dental Extraoral and Intraoral Scanners?. Dent. J., 10.10.3390/dj10020024 ↗
55. Pascadopoli, M., Zampetti, P., Nardi, M.G., Pellegrini, M., and Scribante, A. (2023). Smartphone Applications in Dentistry: A Scoping Review. Dent. J., 11.10.3390/dj11100243 ↗
56. Co-Mask R-CNN: Collaborative Learning-Based Method for Tooth Instance Segmentation10.22514/jocpd.2024.136 ↗