Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2026
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Clinical evaluation of complete arch implant scanning accuracy recorded using an app-based photogrammetry and
Marta Revilla-León1, Rocío Cascos2, 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:
Implant positions can be recorded by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) or photogrammetry (PG) methods. Although the literature has assessed the accuracy of these scanning techniques, further investigation is needed as the technology continues to evolve.
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using a noncalibrated implant scan body (ISB) method (IOConnect) or an app-based PG (T-Marker).
Material And Methods:
A patient with 4 implants with 4 abutments (MultiUnit Abutment) participated in the study. A scan body was tightened into each implant abutment, and 3 scans were obtained (reference) using an extraoral PG (Micron Mapper). Two groups were developed based on the technique selected to record implant scans: a noncalibrated ISB system (IOConnect) and an app-based (T-Marker) PG. In the IOConnect group, an ISB was hand-tightened into each implant abutment followed by capture of the scans using an IOS (TRIOS 5). In the app-based group, a scan body (T-Marker scan body) was tightened into each implant abutment followed by recoding the scans using an app (T-Marker) and a tablet (iPad Pro). The average of the linear and angular measurements obtained among the 3 reference scans was used as a reference to calculate discrepancies with the same measurements obtained on each specimen. The independent samples t test was used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α=.05).
Results:
Significant differences were found among the linear (P=.023) and angular (P<.001) trueness discrepancies between the groups. The T-Marker group obtained better linear and angular trueness than the IOConnect group. Significant angular (P<.001) precision discrepancies were shown between the groups. The T-Marker group (mean of 0.02 degrees) had a significantly better angular precision than the IOConnect group (mean of 0.07 degrees).
Conclusions:
The implant scanning technique impacted the accuracy of complete arch implant scans. However, both techniques may provide a reliable method of capturing implant positions.
