Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 19, 2026
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Accuracy of complete-arch implant scans obtained using intraoral photogrammetry and a mobile-phone based
Mohamed I Alghraisi1, Moustafa Abdou Elsyad2, Amr A El-Sawy3
1Researcher, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Al-Dakahliya, Egypt; Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alasmarya Islamic University, Zliten, Libya.
Aim:
To evaluate and compare the trueness and chairside scanning time of complete-arch implant scans obtained using an intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) system and a mobile-phone-based photogrammetry system (MPPS; T-Marker) in completely edentulous patients with maxillary implants.
Methods:
Twenty-four patients with six implants supporting multiunit abutments (MUAs) in the maxillary arch were enrolled in this randomized crossover clinical study. A conventional open-tray splinted impression was digitized to generate the reference scan. Two digital workflows were evaluated: IPG (IPG; Elite, Shining 3D) and a MPPS; T-Marker (T-Marker; TruAbutment). Linear and angular discrepancies from the reference scan were measured to assess trueness, and the chairside scanning time was recorded. Groups were compared using the a paired t-test (α=.05).
Results:
Significant differences were found between the two workflows in linear trueness, angular trueness, and chairside scanning time. The IPG system demonstrated significantly higher linear and angular trueness and required less chairside scanning time than the MPPS; T-Marker (P<0.001).
Conclusions:
The IPG system demonstrated significantly greater linear and angular trueness and shorter chairside scanning time than the MPPS; T-Marker workflow. However, both workflows provided reliable recordings of complete-arch implant positions.
Clinical Significance:
IPG provides more accurate and time-efficient complete-arch implant position recording than the MPPS; T-Marker workflow and may therefore be preferred when maximum prosthetic accuracy is required. Conversely, MPPS; T-Marker may provide a clinically acceptable and more accessible digital alternative in settings where dedicated photogrammetry systems are unavailable, potentially facilitating broader adoption of digital implant workflows.
