Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2026
Accuracy in Dental Medicine, A New Way to Measure Trueness and Precision
Published on: April 29, 2014
Clinical scanning accuracy evaluation of two intraoral photogrammetry systems
Marta Revilla-León1, Rocio 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 captured by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) is dependent on the scanning technique selected. An intraoral photogrammetry (PG) system has been reported as a reliable technique for capturing implant scans; however, the accuracy of a recently developed intraoral PG system remains unknown.
Purpose:
The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured using 2 intraoral PG systems.
Material And Methods:
A patient having 4 healthy implants with 4 implant abutments (SRA Abutments) participated in the study. Three consecutive scans were captured by using an extraoral PG method (Micron Mapper) to obtain the reference data. Two groups were created based on the intraoral PG system used to obtain the experimental complete arch implant scans: Elite (Aoralscan Elite) and F-Air (Freedom Air). In the Elite group, a scan body (D-Kit) was hand tightened into each implant abutment, and consecutive implant scans were obtained by using the calibrated corresponding IOS. In the F-Air group, a long scan body (L-type) was hand tightened into the right and left implant abutments located in the first molar positions, and a short scan body (SQ-type) was hand tightened into the right and left implant abutments located in the canine positions. Then, consecutive implant scans were obtained by using the PG scanning tip and the corresponding IOS. All the experimental scans were exported in an STL file format, selecting a healing abutment geometry (HC SRA Straumann). All the reference and experimental scans were imported into a dental program (DentalCAD) to design a complete arch implant-supported bar. Then, a reverse engineering program (Geomagic) was used to measure the linear and angular distances among the implants of each bar design. The average distances of the 3 reference scans were used as a reference to compute scanning accuracy. The independent samples t test was used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to examine precision (α=.05).
Results:
The t test revealed significant differences in the angular (P=.035) trueness but no significant differences in the linear (P=.136) discrepancies between the groups tested. The Levene test revealed no significant linear (P=.865) and angular (P=.590) precision discrepancies between the groups tested.
Conclusions:
The intraoral PG methods tested showed similar scanning accuracy values. Elite demonstrated slightly better angular accuracy than Freedom Air (mean difference of 0.024 degrees).
