Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 27, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Striving for trueness: Effect of face scanning on implant planning and interim prosthesis in implant supported
Dina Abd ElMoez Abd Allah1, Ahmed Mostafa Abdelfattah2, Noha Helmy Nawar3
1Assistant Lecturer, Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Statement Of Problem:
The effect of integrating facial scans into digital planning on the accuracy of placement of dental implants and the preplanned interim prosthesis in maxillary complete arch implant rehabilitations has not been clearly established.
Purpose:
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of using face scanners in maxillary complete arch implant supported rehabilitations on the trueness of placement of the implants and the preplanned interim prosthesis.
Material And Methods:
Sixteen completely edentulous participants were selected for maxillary complete arch guided implant placement with immediately loaded interim prosthesis. Participants were randomized into 2 groups; prosthetically driven (PD) and facially driven (FD). In both groups the dual scan protocol was performed. The FD group received additional face scans. All data files were superimposed and the implants' sites, surgical guide, and immediate interim prosthesis were planned. The surgery was carried out and participants were recalled after implant insertion for another cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan. For implants placement trueness, linear deviation at the apex and the tip as well as angular deviations were measured. Regarding trueness of the interim prostheses, the overall deviation and the deviations at the midline, the cusp tips of the canines, and the mesiobuccal cusp of the first molar were measured. Data were non parametric and the Mann Whitney U test was used. Two-step cluster analysis was performed regarding implant deviation data since the implant was the unit of measurement (α=.05).
Results:
No significant differences were found between the FD and PD groups in implant placement trueness; (P>.05) for linear deviations at the base, the tip, and angular ones respectively. However, significant differences (P<.05) were found between both groups for the interim prosthesis trueness, with lower deviations for the overall deviation recorded in the FD group (0.26 ±0.04 mm) than in the PD group (0.39 ±0.05 mm). deviations in the midline, canines, and first molars were lower in the FD group (0.02 ±0.008 mm), (0.02 ±0.006 mm), and (0.02 ±0.005 mm) respectively.
Conclusions:
Incorporating facial scans may enhance esthetic and prosthetic outcomes; however, it shows no significant effect on the trueness of implant placement.
