Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 18, 2026
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Accuracy of implant scans recorded using tablet-based photogrammetry and noncalibrated implant scan body systems
Marta Revilla-León1, Miguel Gómez-Polo2, Abdul B Barmak3
1Affiliate Assistant Professor, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.; Faculty and Director of Research and Digital Dentistry, Kois Center, Seattle, Wash.; and Adjunct Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, Mass.
Statement Of Problem:
The accuracy of implant scans varies depending on the scanning technique used. Newest developments include the capability to capture implant positions by using tablet-based photogrammetry (PG). However, the accuracy of this scanning technique remains unknown.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro study was to analyze the accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured using a tablet-based PG and a noncalibrated implant scan body (ISB) system.
Material And Methods:
A stone cast with 6 implant abutment analogs (MultiUnit Abutment Plus Replica) was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (T710) (control scan). Two groups were created depending on the scanning technique used to capture the experimental complete arch implant scans: tablet-based PG (T-Marker) (Tablet-PG group) and noncalibrated ISB system (IOConnect) (NC-ISB group) (n=30). In the Tablet-PG group, an optical marker was hand tightened into each implant abutment of the reference stone cast. Then, consecutive scans were captured by using a tablet (iPad Pro) and following the scanning distance and pattern recommended by the manufacturer. In the NC-ISB group, a noncalibrated ISB was hand tightened into each implant abutment toward the center of the arch, as instructed by the manufacturer. Consecutive scans involving the distal geometry of the noncalibrated ISBs were recorded using an IOS (TRIOS 5). Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the control scan and used to compare the discrepancies with the same measurements obtained on each experimental scan. The independent samples t test was used to analyze the trueness data. The Levene test was used to analyze the precision values (α=.05).
Results:
Significant differences were found among the overall linear (P<.001) and angular (P=.019) trueness discrepancies between the groups. The NC-ISB group had significantly better linear trueness but lower angular trueness than the Tablet-PG group. Additionally, significant angular (P<.001) precision discrepancies were found between the groups. The Tablet-PG group had significantly better angular precision than the NC-ISB group.
Conclusions:
Accuracy discrepancies were found among the scanning techniques tested. Nonetheless, the tablet-based PG and noncalibrated ISB system obtained accuracy values that may meet the clinical requirements for capturing implant positions.
