Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2025
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Accuracy of a Novel Intraoral Photogrammetry Technique for Complete-Arch Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Study
Xiao-Jiao Fu1, Zheng-Zhen Cai1, Jun-Yu Shi1
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantology, Shanghai PerioImplant Innovation Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Center for Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
Objectives:
To compare the accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions using four digital techniques: extraoral photogrammetry (EPG), intraoral scanning with original scan body (IOS), intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids (IOSA), and intraoral photogrammetry (IPG).
Materials And Methods:
One edentulous maxillary master model with six parallel abutment analogs was scanned by a laboratory scanner as the reference scan. EPG, IOS, IOSA, and IPG were used to scan the master model with respective scan bodies as test scans. Ten scanning data were gained for each technique. Trueness and precision of root mean square (RMS) errors were measured between the test and reference scans. Deviations in distance and angle relative to the reference scan between all pairs of abutment analogs were measured. Scanning time was recorded.
Results:
IPG showed significantly best trueness in RMS errors (IPG, 26.37 ± 1.02 μm; EPG, 31.72 ± 0.59 μm; IOS, 39.93 ± 7.98 μm; IOSA, 50.60 ± 12.46 μm), (all p < 0.050). EPG showed significantly best precision in RMS errors (EPG, 2.30 ± 1.31 μm; IPG, 4.12 ± 0.87 μm; IOS, 33.38 ± 13.95 μm; IOSA, 28.35 ± 11.48 μm), (all p < 0.001). IPG demonstrated significantly best performance in distance deviation (IPG, 28.59 ± 24.75 μm; EPG, 55.55 ± 37.82 μm; IOS, 62.97 ± 50.60 μm; IOSA, 93.37 ± 72.15 μm), (all p < 0.050). No significant differences were found regarding angle deviation (p = 0.313). IOSA showed the longest scanning duration (IPG: 50.30 ± 6.77 s; EPG: 57.40 ± 5.19 s; IOS: 91.10 ± 20.31 s; IOSA: 125.00 ± 18.74 s), (all p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
IPG achieved comparable accuracy with EPG in complete-arch implant digital impressions in vitro. IPG offers an efficient and straightforward workflow, making it a valuable alternative method; however, further clinical studies are needed to validate its efficacy.
