Next Article in Journal
Fault Diagnosis of Rolling Bearings Based on Acoustic Signals in Strong Noise Environments
Next Article in Special Issue
Peri-Implantitis Causal Therapy with and Without Doxycycline: Retrospective Cohort Clinical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Integrated Geotechnical Analysis of Allophanic Volcanic Ash Soils: SDMT and Laboratory Perspectives
Previous Article in Special Issue
Stability of the Implant–Alveolar Bone Complex According to the Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Bone Quality: A Finite Element Analysis Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/app15031388
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Precision of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanning in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An In Vitro Comparative Study

by
João Carlos Faria
1,
Manuel António Sampaio-Fernandes
1,*,
Susana João Oliveira
1,
Rodrigo Malheiro
2,
João Carlos Sampaio-Fernandes
1 and
Maria Helena Figueiral
1,3,*
1
Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade do Porto, 4200-393 Oporto, Portugal
2
Faculdade de Medicina Dentária, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-003 Lisbon, Portugal
3
Instituto de Ciência e Inovação em Engenharia Mecânica e Engenharia Industrial (INEGI), Universidade do Porto, 4200-465 Oporto, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(3), 1388; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031388
Submission received: 15 December 2024 / Revised: 26 January 2025 / Accepted: 27 January 2025 / Published: 29 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implants: Latest Advances and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The objective of this in vitro study is to evaluate and compare the precision of digital impressions obtained using intraoral scanners and photogrammetry devices for full-arch implant-supported oral rehabilitation. Three reference models were created with various spatial distributions of Straumann implants, according to the Caramês I Classification: (i) option A with six implants; (ii) option B with four implants; and (iii) option C with four implants. Thirty digital impressions were taken for each of the reference models: ten with the Intraoral 3Shape Trios 3 scanner, ten with the Medit i500 intraoral scanner, and ten with the PIC Dental photogrammetry device. Intra-group best-fit overlaps were performed between the virtual models obtained, and accuracy was evaluated using root mean square (RMS) values. A significance level of p = 0.05 was defined. Mean values were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. All scanners studied showed high precision, with RMS values similar for each implant distribution. The PIC Dental photogrammetry device demonstrated the best results for the CCI A and B distributions, with mean values of 11.28 µm and 14.44 µm, respectively. For the CCI C distribution, the 3Shape Trios 3 scanner achieved the best result, with a mean value of 5.96 µm. Among all devices, the implant distribution showing the highest RMS values was the CCI B, with mean values between 14.44 µm and 16.96 µm. The PIC Dental device was the only method that did not exhibit statistically significant differences in RMS values across the different distributions studied, indicating that its performance is unaffected by distribution variations. No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in the RMS values among the three types of scanners. Overall, a smaller number of implants and closer distribution between them resulted in improved precision for digital impressions in full-arch implant rehabilitation.

1. Introduction

Oral rehabilitation using implants is currently a common and highly effective approach, offering a durable and predictable solution for restoring both masticatory function and aesthetics in edentulous patients. The success of this treatment option largely depends on obtaining accurate and reliable models from patients, in order to plan and manufacture customized dental prostheses [1]. In this context, achieving a passive fit between the prosthetic structures and implants is considered a key factor for preventing mechanical and biological complications, thereby ensuring the long-term success of implant-supported prosthetic treatments [1,2].
In terms of mechanical complications, forces generated by tension, compression, and flexion due to non-passive adjustments can lead to fractures of screws, prostheses, or implants. Biological complications may also arise from a poor prosthetic fit, as the increased space between the prosthesis and implant promotes the accumulation of microorganisms, potentially leading to issues in the supporting tissues [3].
Several authors have stated that achieving absolute passive fit is nearly impossible due to the numerous steps involved in the prosthetic manufacturing process, particularly in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation [4,5]. However, a small margin of error is generally considered acceptable and is unlikely to result in future complications [3,6]. The quality of the impression is a critical determinant in achieving a passive fit of prosthetic structures, as osseointegrated implants cannot accommodate inaccuracies due to the absence of a periodontal ligament. Consequently, even minor discrepancies can lead to prosthetic maladjustment, which may compromise long-term success [7,8].
It has been reported that the maximum acceptable lack of adjustment is 150 µm [2,9], while others suggest a limit of approximately 60 µm [3,10] and 50 µm [8,11]. Moreover, various reviews have concluded that there is no consensus on the fit of implant-supported prostheses [12,13]. For this reason, some authors suggest that errors should be limited to 30–50 µm to prevent mechanical and biological complications [12,14].
CAD/CAM systems were introduced alongside optical impressions using intraoral scanners (IOs) as part of a fully digital workflow [15,16]. The use of digital impressions for short-span cases in implant-supported rehabilitations is currently well supported in the literature. Nevertheless, some reluctance remains regarding their use in total implant-supported rehabilitations, due to the lack of precision reported in several studies [9]. In fact, the accuracy of digital impressions is inversely proportional to the scanned area size, and factors such as the absence of anatomical landmarks, the presence of mucosa, the distance between implants, and the impression conditions and strategies can contribute to errors [14,16,17,18,19,20].
In light of this challenge and aiming at improving the accuracy of digital impression methods in full-arch implant-supported prostheses, the use of photogrammetry technology has emerged as a viable alternative for capturing the spatial position of implants [21,22,23]. Although some studies have been conducted on this topic, the literature comparing implant scanning using photogrammetry for scanning with IOs is still scarce [24,25].
Despite technological advances, gaps remain in the literature concerning the standardization of protocols for digital impressions, direct comparisons between different scanners, and assessment of their long-term clinical accuracy [26]. These questions highlight research opportunities to enhance the reliability and accuracy of scanners used in total implant rehabilitation. The objective of this in vitro study is to evaluate the precision of digital impressions in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with various implant distributions, comparing commonly used IOs with different technologies (confocal technology and 3D motion technology) and photogrammetry equipment. In clinical practice, this study may provide relevant insights into the scanning methodology that offers the highest precision in full-arch implant digital impressions.
The first null hypothesis (H01) states that there are no differences in precision depending on the scanner used. The second null hypothesis (H02) states that there are no differences in precision according to the various distributions of implants in the arch.

2. Materials and Methods

Straumann BLX 4.0 mm × 12 mm implants (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) and the corresponding screw-retained abutments (SRAs) (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were placed in three edentulous acrylic mandible models with artificial gingiva (Figure 1). Each reference model presents a different implant distribution, according to the Caramês Classification I (CCI)—option A with 6 implants (2 implants in the position of the lateral incisors, 2 anterior to the mental foramen, and 2 in the region of the first molars); option B with 4 implants (2 implants in the position of the canines and 2 in the region of the first molars); and option C with 4 implants (2 implants in the position of the lateral incisors and 2 anterior to the mental foramen) [27]. For the models used in this study, the distance between the implants was approximately 10 mm in CCI options A and C, whereas in CCI option B, it increased to approximately 16 mm.
For digital impressions with IOs, scanbodies (CARES Mono scanbodies, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were screwed at 10 Ncm into the SRA (Figure 2a). For digital impressions with photogrammetry, PIC transfers (PIC system, Madrid, Spain) were used, also with a tightening of 10 Ncm (Figure 2b).
Subsequently, a total of 90 digital impressions were taken, 30 for each of the 3 different implant distributions mentioned: 10 with an IO Trios 3 scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), 10 with an IO Medit i500 scanner (Medit corp., Seoul, Republic of Korea), and 10 using photogrammetry technology performed with a PIC Dental scanner (PIC system, Madrid, Spain) (Figure 3) [22]. This sample size is supported by similar studies available in the literature; therefore, no statistical power analysis was performed [22,28,29].
The scanners were calibrated prior to each scan, following the manufacturer’s instructions, and subject to the same room conditions. The three reference models were digitized in a controlled environment, with a temperature of 20 ± 1 °C, a relative humidity of 50 ± 20%, and an illuminance of approximately 1000 lux. The digital impressions were performed by a single operator and saved in the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) format.
The STL files were subsequently imported into computer-aided design software (Exocad DentalCAD 3.2 Elefsina, exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany) to generate the digital replicas. After identifying the scanbodies using the library, the replicas were automatically positioned and exported as STL files. The aforementioned STL files with the spatial position of the replicas were imported into the metrology software for three-dimensional analysis (Geomagic Control X 2022.0.1, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) [29].
In the present study, precision refers to the reproducibility of the digital impression measurements, and it was determined by successively overlapping the impressions obtained with the IOs and photogrammetry technology. The STL files from each group were compared to one another using the root mean square (RMS) values, as described by Ma et al. [22]. A total of 45 comparisons were made per group under study (Table 1). For all comparisons, the “initial alignment” tool was selected followed by the “best-fit alignment”. Subsequently, using the “3D compare” tool, the discrepancies between the superimpositions were quantified.
File alignment was defined with a tolerance of best values between +30 and −30 µm (Figure 4). Precision was assessed based on RMS values of 3D comparisons in micrometers (µm) and the data obtained are presented as means ± CI at 95%.
To perform the inferential analysis, the normality of distribution was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and the equality of variance was assessed with Levene’s test. Nonparametric tests were then applied.
To compare the digital measurements between study groups, the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis tests were used. For multiple comparisons, the p-value was adjusted based on the Bonferroni correction method. The results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was conducted using the software SPSS, version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

The evaluation of precision was based on 405 digital measurements obtained with three scanners: 3Shape Trios 3, Medit i500, and PIC Dental photogrammetry. The minimum, maximum, and RMS parameters were analyzed and compared with respect to the position of the implants (3Shape Trios 3: Tr6_A, Tr4_B, and Tr4_C; Medit i500: Md6_A, Md4_B, and Md4_C; PIC Dental photogrammetry: Pi6_A, Pi4_B, and Pi4_C). The mean RMS values ranged from 1.90 µm to 45.60 µm (Table 2).
As shown in Table 2, statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed among the various implant distributions in both IO scanners studied; however, no significant differences (p = 0.358) were detected between CCI A and CCI B with 3Shape Trios 3. For both scanners, the best results were obtained with the CCI C implant distribution (5.96 µm—3Shape; 7.36 µm—Medit).
For PIC Dental photogrammetry, no significant differences (p = 0.075) were found among the three implant distributions assessed.
When comparing the various implant distributions (Table 3), the Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant differences (p < 0.001) among the three distributions assessed. The CCI C distribution showed the best precision (8.29 µm) followed by CCI A and CCl B (11.77 µm and 16.03 µm, respectively).
Kruskal–Wallis tests were also conducted to assess the precision among the devices studied (Table 4). High precision was observed for all the devices analyzed, with no significant differences found (p = 0.097).

4. Discussion

The first null hypothesis (H01), which states that there are no differences in precision based on the scanner used, was accepted, as no statistically significant differences were observed among the various scanners assessed.
The second null hypothesis (H02), which posits that there are no differences in precision according to the various implant distributions (CCI A, option with six implants, two implants in the position of the lateral incisors, two anterior to the mental foramen, and two in the region of the first molars; CCI B, option with four implants, two implants in the canine position and two implants in the first molar region; and CCI C, option with four implants, two implants in the position of the lateral incisors and two implants anterior to the mental foramen), was rejected, as the results indicated that the CCI C distribution, characterized by the lowest number of implants and their closer proximity to one another, yielded significantly more favorable results. On the other hand, the CCI B distribution was the one that presented the worst results.
Full-arch implant-supported restorations present a challenge for achieving reliable intraoral scanning. Inaccuracies may arise from limited anatomical landmarks, the extensive presence of mobile mucosa, the uniform morphology and increased spacing between implant scanbodies, or the summation of intrinsic errors in the image acquisition process due to an expanded scanning area [30]. This in vitro study analyzed and compared the precision of various digital impression methods in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Two IOs and a photogrammetry-based scanner were assessed. The former two (the 3Shape Trios 3 using confocal technology and the Medit i500, based on the principle of 3D video technology in motion) capture data within a small area, while the latter determines the spatial positions of implants, including distances and angulations, based on calibrated marker coordinates (PIC Dental) [22,28,31,32]. These IOs were chosen because (i) they represent distinct scanning principles, whereas PIC Dental scanner employs a photogrammetry-based approach, enabling a comprehensive comparison of precision across different scanning methodologies, and (ii) they are commonly used in clinical practice, making the findings more applicable to real-world scenarios. The Caramês Classification for implant distribution was followed because it provides a standardized system for implant positioning in the jawbone and is widely accepted in the field of implant dentistry [27].
The data analysis was conducted using the best-fit alignment methodology by calculating the root mean square (RMS) value, with successive superimpositions performed to assess precision [29]. Alternative approaches have been described in the literature to assess the accuracy of IOs, including linear and angular measurements without superimpositions, mean 3D deviations, absolute distance measurements, and deviations along the X, Y, and Z axes after applying a best-fit algorithm [33]. The RMS method does not convey comprehensive information about the nature or distribution of errors, and it is algorithm-dependent [22]. This dependency can introduce variability based on the method used and may fail to capture localized deviations. Despite these limitations, the RMS method was selected for the current study due to the following considerations: (i) it quantifies overall deviations across the entire dataset; (ii) it enables straightforward comparisons between different scanning technologies; and (iii) by incorporating all data points, RMS values reduce potential biases associated with specific reference points or planes, making the method less operator-dependent than linear or angular measurement techniques [34]. It is worth noting that the accuracy of an impression method is defined by two primary parameters: trueness and precision. According to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), “accuracy” is the combination of “trueness” and “precision”, where “trueness” refers to the ability of an impression to reproduce the dental arch as reliably as possible and without distortions, while “precision” (repeatability) refers to the closeness of agreement between different impression results, obtained under similar conditions [35,36,37,38,39].
Although insightful, the results of the present study are specific to the systems evaluated and should be applied with caution to other devices. In this study, digital impressions were taken by a single operator experienced in the abovementioned techniques to minimize variability among groups [39]. The operator was proficient in the digital technologies employed, with more than 5 years of clinical experience in digital dentistry and implant prosthodontics. Future studies involving multiple operators may help identify potential variations among professionals with different levels of experience. To enhance reproducibility and ensure reliable data acquisition, controlled room conditions of light, temperature, and relative humidity were implemented in this study, as recommended in the literature [40].
Concerning precision assessment by implant distribution per device, statistically significant differences were found in RMS values among the groups scanned with the IOs of 3Shape Trios 3 and Medit i500 scanners. However, no differences were observed among the groups evaluated with the PIC Dental photogrammetry scanner, suggesting that the precision provided by this device is not influenced either by the number or the position of dental implants.
All scanners studied demonstrated high precision levels across all implant distributions. A detailed analysis revealed that the 3Shape Trios 3 and Medit i500 IOs exhibited very low RMS values in the CCI C distribution, whereas for the CCI A distribution, a similar performance was obtained among all scanners. Additionally, the PIC Dental scanner produced slightly lower RMS values than the IOs in the CCI B implant distribution. The highest mean RMS values were observed in the Tr4_B group (16.96 µm), but these still reflect high precision.
Photogrammetry-based scanning was the only approach in which no statistically significant differences were found across multiple pairwise comparisons (Pi6_A, Pi4_B, and Pi4_C). Notably, the discrepancies identified in our work are smaller than those reported by studies evaluating the best passive adjustment [14,32].
When assessing the precision of all scanners regardless of implant distribution, high performance was also observed, with the Medit i500 IOs showing the best precision (although without statistical significance), followed by the IO 3Shape Trios 3 scanner, and the PIC Dental photogrammetry device. In fact, no statistically significant differences were found when considering only the digital scanner systems, indicating high repeatability among the devices evaluated.
As previously mentioned, a full comparison of these results with the available literature is hindered by the use of diverse scanning devices and variable experimental conditions. Although without statistical significance, the PIC-based photogrammetry yielded the highest mean RMS values. This pattern aligns with the findings of Revilla-León et al., who, in contrast to our data, reported statistical differences among the technologies assessed. Specifically, their in vitro study compared the accuracy of a conventional analog impression, two IOs, and a photogrammetry-based scanner, with the latter presenting the least accurate results and the highest discrepancy values [38]. However, these findings are not consistent across the literature, as other studies have reported lower discrepancy values for photogrammetry-based impressions [22,23].
A number of references to safety values of precision can be found in the literature to prevent clinical complications associated with the misfit of implant-supported prostheses, such as unscrewing of structures or even fracture of screws and abutments [3,41,42]. Of these, 30 µm is the most consensual value and is described as the one with the greatest precision, and it was therefore considered for this study [14,32].
Based on this cutoff value, and as previously mentioned, all digital impression methods assessed demonstrated high performance with low RMS values, showing an average discrepancy close to 12 µm for all devices.
With respect to the impact of implant distribution on precision parameters, this study demonstrated that a smaller number of implants in closer proximity yields better results, as the CCI C implant distribution showed the lowest RMS values in the precision assessment. As reported in other studies, statistically significant differences were found between impression methods when scanning four or six implants [43]. In the present study, in addition to varying implant numbers, different spatial positions were also evaluated. According to the results, four implants placed in the anterior region (CCI C) produced better results than four implants positioned more distantly (CCI B). Therefore, our data support the idea that a reduced number of implants in closer proximity favors better passivity results. As noted in the literature, the absence of reference points on the mucosa leads to lower precision in digital impressions [14,16,19,27,44].
While valuable, our study has certain constraints. One limitation is the assessment of precision based on RMS values derived from 3D comparisons: as discussed above, these values represent the global average of discrepancies and do not allow for an individual interpretation of results, considering the position of each implant [34]. Another limitation is the lack of a control group (i.e., conventional impressions) [12]. Finally, the use of in vitro conditions for the scanning procedures also represents a limitation of this study, which may have underestimated deviations caused by intrinsic patient factors such as saliva, blood, tongue movements, soft tissues, and lighting conditions [45]. It is important to emphasize that IO scanners were used under ideal conditions, i.e., in the absence of blood, saliva, and mobile tissues. Consequently, it can be anticipated that their performance in clinical practice may be inferior to the in vitro results, whereas photogrammetry-based scanning is likely to maintain comparable precision under similar conditions. In fact, photogrammetry-based impressions have emerged as a promising alternative to IOs for full-arch implant impressions, as they may address some of these limitations [25]. Due to its equipment features and impression techniques, photogrammetry may present fewer challenges than IOs [38,46]. Photogrammetry systems are costly and primarily designed for implant scanning rather than general-purpose intraoral digitization. As this technology exclusively records the positional data of implant abutments within the patient’s oral cavity, the complementary use of conventional IOs is required to capture soft tissue information [22]. Consequently, the cost–benefit ratio of photogrammetry should be carefully evaluated. However, the use of photogrammetry based on open-source software has been described in the literature as a means of obtaining digital models at minimal expense, thus presenting an appealing option for dental students and young practitioners seeking to adopt digital dental workflows [47].
Regarding further investigations, additional in vitro studies could be conducted. In this context, it would be interesting to explore whether the precision of implant-scanning methods is influenced by factors such as implant angulation, alternative distributions, and depth, as well as the supramucosal height and geometry of the scanbodies [33]. Future studies on the time required for the photogrammetry process could provide valuable insights for clinical practice in implant prosthodontics. Additionally, it would be interesting to match photogrammetry with recently introduced technology such as smartphone applications and artificial intelligence in order to improve knowledge about reliability in daily clinical practice [48,49]. Furthermore, studies with larger datasets could further elucidate the differences observed in the present investigation. The inclusion of conventional impression techniques as a control group should also be considered in future work, as this would enable a more comprehensive comparative analysis. In vitro studies cannot fully mimic the complexity and challenging conditions of the oral cavity. In vivo studies are therefore recommended to evaluate the performance of equipment subjected to factors such as bone atrophy, saliva, soft tissue mobility, and lighting conditions. In clinical practice, this study, along with additional research, may offer valuable insights into the scanning methodology that provides the highest precision for full-arch implant digital impressions.

5. Conclusions

Considering the limitations of this in vitro study, we conclude that, overall, there are no significant differences in the precision of digital impressions obtained using intraoral scanners and photogrammetry devices for full-arch implant rehabilitation, although some differences, without statistical differences, were observed under specific conditions.
All the scanners evaluated (3Shape Trios 3, Medit i500, and PIC Dental photogrammetry) demonstrated discrepancies within clinically acceptable values. Among the scanners, the PIC Dental system, using photogrammetry technology, was the only device that did not present statistically significant differences across the various implant distributions studied. In contrast to the PIC device, a smaller number of implants and a closer spacing between them were found to improve the precision of digital impressions with IOs.
These conclusions are specific to the experimental tools and conditions used in this study, and their generalization requires further validation. Additionally, randomized clinical studies are needed to evaluate the performance of these and other devices in vivo.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.C.F.; methodology, R.M. and M.A.S.-F.; software, J.C.F. and R.M.; validation, M.A.S.-F. and M.H.F.; formal analysis, J.C.F.; investigation, J.C.F. and J.C.S.-F.; resources, R.M.; data curation, S.J.O.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.F.; writing—review and editing, S.J.O. and M.A.S.-F.; visualization, M.H.F.; supervision, J.C.S.-F.; project administration, J.C.S.-F. and M.H.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Papaspyridakos, P.; Chen, C.-J.; Gallucci, G.O.; Doukoudakis, A.; Weber, H.-P.; Chronopoulos, V. Accuracy of Implant Impressions for Partially and Completely Edentulous Patients: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2014, 29, 836–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jemt, T.; Lie, A. Accuracy of Implant-Supported Prostheses in the Edentulous Jaw: Analysis of Precision of Fit between Cast Gold-Alloy Frameworks and Master Casts by Means of a Three-Dimensional Photogrammetric Technique. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 1995, 6, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sahin, S.; Cehreli, M.C. The Significance of Passive Framework Fit in Implant Prosthodontics: Current Status. Implant. Dent. 2001, 10, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wennerberg, A.; Albrektsson, T. Current Challenges in Successful Rehabilitation with Oral Implants. J. Oral Rehabil. 2011, 38, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aglietta, M.; Siciliano, V.I.; Zwahlen, M.; Brägger, U.; Pjetursson, B.E.; Lang, N.P.; Salvi, G.E. A Systematic Review of the Survival and Complication Rates of Implant Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses with Cantilever Extensions after an Observation Period of at Least 5 Years. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2009, 20, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kan, J.Y.; Rungcharassaeng, K.; Bohsali, K.; Goodacre, C.J.; Lang, B.R. Clinical Methods for Evaluating Implant Framework Fit. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1999, 81, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rutkūnas, V.; Gečiauskaitė, A.; Jegelevičius, D.; Vaitiekūnas, M. Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions with Intraoral Scanners. A Systematic Review. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2017, 10 (Suppl. S1), 101–120. [Google Scholar]
  8. Knechtle, N.; Wiedemeier, D.; Mehl, A.; Ender, A. Accuracy of Digital Complete-Arch, Multi-Implant Scans Made in the Edentulous Jaw with Gingival Movement Simulation: An in Vitro Study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 128, 468–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wulfman, C.; Naveau, A.; Rignon-Bret, C. Digital Scanning for Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 124, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Huang, R.; Liu, Y.; Huang, B.; Zhang, C.; Chen, Z.; Li, Z. Improved Scanning Accuracy with Newly Designed Scan Bodies: An in Vitro Study Comparing Digital versus Conventional Impression Techniques for Complete-arch Implant Rehabilitation. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2020, 31, 625–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kim, Y.; Oh, T.-J.; Misch, C.E.; Wang, H.-L. Occlusal Considerations in Implant Therapy: Clinical Guidelines with Biomechanical Rationale. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2005, 16, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Di Fiore, A.; Meneghello, R.; Graiff, L.; Savio, G.; Vigolo, P.; Monaco, C.; Stellini, E. Full Arch Digital Scanning Systems Performances for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Comparative Study of 8 Intraoral Scanners. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2019, 63, 396–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Michelinakis, G.; Apostolakis, D.; Kamposiora, P.; Papavasiliou, G.; Özcan, M. The Direct Digital Workflow in Fixed Implant Prosthodontics: A Narrative Review. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Revell, G.; Simon, B.; Mennito, A.; Evans, Z.P.; Renne, W.; Ludlow, M.; Vág, J. Evaluation of Complete-Arch Implant Scanning with 5 Different Intraoral Scanners in Terms of Trueness and Operator Experience. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 128, 632–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ahlholm, P.; Sipilä, K.; Vallittu, P.; Jakonen, M.; Kotiranta, U. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 27, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mizumoto, R.M.; Yilmaz, B. Intraoral Scan Bodies in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 343–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alikhasi, M.; Siadat, H.; Nasirpour, A.; Hasanzade, M. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type. Int. J. Dent. 2018, 2018, 3761750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Papaspyridakos, P.; Gallucci, G.O.; Chen, C.-J.; Hanssen, S.; Naert, I.; Vandenberghe, B. Digital versus Conventional Implant Impressions for Edentulous Patients: Accuracy Outcomes. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2016, 27, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Çakmak, G.; Yilmaz, H.; Treviño, A.; Kökat, A.M.; Yilmaz, B. The Effect of Scanner Type and Scan Body Position on the Accuracy of Complete-arch Digital Implant Scans. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2020, 22, 533–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gavounelis, N.A.; Gogola, C.-M.C.; Halazonetis, D.J. The Effect of Scanning Strategy on Intraoral Scanner’s Accuracy. Dent. J. 2022, 10, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Y.-J.; Qian, S.-J.; Lai, H.-C.; Shi, J.-Y. Accuracy of Photogrammetric Imaging versus Conventional Impressions for Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Comparative Clinical Study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ma, B.; Yue, X.; Sun, Y.; Peng, L.; Geng, W. Accuracy of Photogrammetry, Intraoral Scanning, and Conventional Impression Techniques for Complete-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An in Vitro Comparative Study. BMC Oral Health 2021, 21, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tohme, H.; Lawand, G.; Chmielewska, M.; Makhzoume, J. Comparison between Stereophotogrammetric, Digital, and Conventional Impression Techniques in Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Arch Prostheses: An in Vitro Study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023, 129, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yan, Y.; Lin, X.; Yue, X.; Geng, W. Accuracy of 2 Direct Digital Scanning Techniques—Intraoral Scanning and Stereophotogrammetry—For Complete Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses: A Prospective Study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023, 130, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pozzi, A.; Agliardi, E.; Lio, F.; Nagy, K.; Nardi, A.; Arcuri, L. Accuracy of Intraoral Optical Scan versus Stereophotogrammetry for Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: An in Vitro Study. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2023, 68, JPR_D_22_00251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fasbinder, D.J. Digital Dentistry: Innovation for Restorative Treatment. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2010, 31, 2–11; quiz 12. [Google Scholar]
  27. Caramês, J. A Comprehensive Classification to Full Arch Implant Rehabilitation. Rev. Port. Estomatol. Med. Dentária E Cir. Maxilofac. 2019, 60, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jivănescu, A.; Bara, A.; Faur, A.-B.; Rotar, R.N. Is There a Significant Difference in Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners for Short-Span Fixed Dental Prosthesis? A Comparative In Vitro Study. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sampaio-Fernandes, M.A.; Pinto, R.; Almeida, P.R.; Sampaio-Fernandes, M.M.; Marques, D.; Figueiral, M.H. Accuracy of Extraoral Digital Impressions with Multi-Unit Implants. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kanjanasavitree, P.; Thammajaruk, P.; Guazzato, M. Comparison of Different Artificial Landmarks and Scanning Patterns on the Complete-Arch Implant Intraoral Digital Scans. J. Dent. 2022, 125, 104266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Amornvit, P.; Rokaya, D.; Peampring, C.; Sanohkan, S. Confocal 3D Optical Intraoral Scanners and Comparison of Image Capturing Accuracy. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2020, 66, 303–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Imburgia, M.; Kois, J.; Marino, E.; Lerner, H.; Mangano, F.G. Continuous Scan Strategy (CSS): A Novel Technique to Improve the Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impressions. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2020, 28, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Sicilia, E.; Lagreca, G.; Papaspyridakos, P.; Finkelman, M.; Cobo, J.; Att, W.; Revilla-León, M. Effect of Supramucosal Height of a Scan Body and Implant Angulation on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning: An in Vitro Study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2024, 131, 1126–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lyu, M.; Di, P.; Lin, Y.; Jiang, X. Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2022, 128, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sanda, M.; Miyoshi, K.; Baba, K. Trueness and Precision of Digital Implant Impressions by Intraoral Scanners: A Literature Review. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2021, 7, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ender, A.; Mehl, A. Accuracy of Complete-Arch Dental Impressions: A New Method of Measuring Trueness and Precision. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013, 109, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Flügge, T.V.; Schlager, S.; Nelson, K.; Nahles, S.; Metzger, M.C. Precision of Intraoral Digital Dental Impressions with ITero and Extraoral Digitization with the ITero and a Model Scanner. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 2013, 144, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Revilla-León, M.; Att, W.; Özcan, M.; Rubenstein, J. Comparison of Conventional, Photogrammetry, and Intraoral Scanning Accuracy of Complete-Arch Implant Impression Procedures Evaluated with a Coordinate Measuring Machine. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 470–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Arcuri, L.; Pozzi, A.; Lio, F.; Rompen, E.; Zechner, W.; Nardi, A. Influence of Implant Scanbody Material, Position and Operator on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized in Vitro Trial. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2020, 64, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sampaio-Fernandes, M.A.F.; Pinto, R.; Sampaio-Fernandes, M.M.; Carlos, J.; Marques, D.; Figueiral, M.H. Accuracy of Silicone Impressions and Stone Models Using Two Laboratory Scanners: A 3D Evaluation. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2024, 37, e10–e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Taylor, T.D. Prosthodontic Problems and Limitations Associated with Osseointegration. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1998, 79, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kallus, T.; Bessing, C. Loose Gold Screws Frequently Occur in Full-Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported by Osseointegrated Implants after 5 Years. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 1994, 9, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Chochlidakis, K.; Papaspyridakos, P.; Tsigarida, A.; Romeo, D.; Chen, Y.; Natto, Z.; Ercoli, C. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. J. Prosthodont. 2020, 29, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bohner, L.; Gamba, D.D.; Hanisch, M.; Marcio, B.S.; Tortamano Neto, P.; Laganá, D.C.; Sesma, N. Accuracy of Digital Technologies for the Scanning of Facial, Skeletal, and Intraoral Tissues: A Systematic Review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2019, 121, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lim, J.-H.; Park, J.-M.; Kim, M.; Heo, S.-J.; Myung, J.-Y. Comparison of Digital Intraoral Scanner Reproducibility and Image Trueness Considering Repetitive Experience. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 119, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hussein, M.O. Photogrammetry Technology in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2023, 130, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zotti, F.; Rosolin, L.; Bersani, M.; Poscolere, A.; Pappalardo, D.; Zerman, N. Digital Dental Models: Is Photogrammetry an Alternative to Dental Extraoral and Intraoral Scanners? Dent J. 2022, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pascadopoli, M.; Zampetti, P.; Nardi, M.G.; Pellegrini, M.; Scribante, A. Smartphone Applications in Dentistry: A Scoping Review. Dent J. 2023, 11, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, C.; Yang, J.; Liu, H.; Yu, P.; Jiang, X.; Liu, R. Co-Mask R-CNN: Collaborative Learning-Based Method for Tooth Instance Segmentation. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2024, 48, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 01388 g001
Figure 1. Analog mandibular model with implants and screw-retained straight abutments (Straumann, Switzerland).
Figure 1. Analog mandibular model with implants and screw-retained straight abutments (Straumann, Switzerland).
Applsci 15 01388 g001
Applsci 15 01388 g002
Figure 2. Preparation of analog models for digital impression: (a) analog model with scanbodies (Straumann, Switzerland); (b) analog model with PIC transfers (PIC Dental, Spain).
Figure 2. Preparation of analog models for digital impression: (a) analog model with scanbodies (Straumann, Switzerland); (b) analog model with PIC transfers (PIC Dental, Spain).
Applsci 15 01388 g002
Applsci 15 01388 g003
Figure 3. Complete workflow overview.
Figure 3. Complete workflow overview.
Applsci 15 01388 g003
Applsci 15 01388 g004
Figure 4. Representative image of color maps reflecting discrepancies from best-fit superimposition between each evaluated distribution. Color scale ranges from +1000 (red) to −1000 µm (blue), and tolerance values are between +30 and −30 µm (green). (a) CCI A; (b) CCI B; and (c) CCI C.
Figure 4. Representative image of color maps reflecting discrepancies from best-fit superimposition between each evaluated distribution. Color scale ranges from +1000 (red) to −1000 µm (blue), and tolerance values are between +30 and −30 µm (green). (a) CCI A; (b) CCI B; and (c) CCI C.
Applsci 15 01388 g004
Table 1. Definition of the study groups.
Table 1. Definition of the study groups.
ScannerNumber and Position of ImplantsGroup
Scanner IO
3Shape Trios 3		6 (CCI A)Tr6_A
4 (CCI B)Tr4_B
4 (CCI C)Tr4_C
Scanner IO
Medit i500		6 (CCI A)Md6_A
4 (CCI B)Md4_B
4 (CCI C)Md4_C
Photogrammetry PIC Dental6 (CCI A)Pi6_A
4 (CCI B)Pi4_B
4 (CCI C)Pi4_C
CCI A, option with 6 implants, 2 implants in the position of the lateral incisors, 2 anterior to the mental foramen, and 2 in the region of the first molars; CCI B, option with 4 implants, 2 implants in the canine position and 2 implants in the first molar region; CCI C, option with 4 implants, 2 implants in the position of the lateral incisors and 2 implants anterior to the mental foramen; Tr6_A, digital impression with 3Shape Trios 3 scanner and CCI distribution option A; Tr4_B, digital impression with 3Shape Trios 3 scanner and CCI distribution option B; Tr4_C, digital impression with 3Shape Trios 3 scanner and CCI distribution option C; Md6_A, digital impression with Medit i500 scanner and CCI distribution option A; Md4_B, digital impression with Medit i500 scanner and CCI distribution option B; Md4_C, digital impression with Medit i500 scanner and CCI distribution option C; Pi6_A, digital impression with PIC Dental scanner and CCI distribution option A; Pi4_B, digital impression with PIC Dental scanner and CCI distribution option B; Pi4_C, digital impression with PIC Dental scanner and CCI distribution option C.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and comparison of digital parameters in precision tests by implant distribution, per device (µm).
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and comparison of digital parameters in precision tests by implant distribution, per device (µm).
ScannerNumber and Position of ImplantsGroupRMS ± 95% CI (µm)Min; Maxnp
IO 3Shape Trios 36 (CCI A)Tr6_A12.66 [11.12; 14.20]5.80; 30.9045*<0.001
4 (CCI B)Tr4_B16.96 [13.59; 20.33]6.10; 45.6045*
4 (CCI C)Tr4_C5.96 [5.52; 6.41]3.80; 10.1045
IO Medit i5006 (CCI A)Md6_A11.36 [10.61; 12.10]7.00; 17.0045 <0.001
4 (CCI B)Md4_B16.69 [15.04; 18.33]7.90; 37.1045
4 (CCI C)Md4_C7.36 [6.73; 7.98]2.80; 12.8045
Photogrammetry PIC Dental6 (CCI A)Pi6_A11.28 [9.80; 12.76]3.30; 22.6045 0.075
4 (CCI B)Pi4_B14.44 [12.24; 16.63]1.90; 27.2045-
4 (CCI C)Pi4_C11.54 [9.65; 13.43]2.20; 26.6045-
Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test. RMS, root mean square; CI, confidence interval; Min, minimum; Max, maximum; *, no significant differences (p = 0.358).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and comparison of precision test parameters among different implant distributions (µm).
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and comparison of precision test parameters among different implant distributions (µm).
Number and Position of ImplantsRMS ± 95% CI (µm)Min; Max (µm)np
6 (CCI A)11.77 [11.02; 12.51]3.30; 30.90135<0.001
4 (CCI B)16.03 [14.61; 17.45]1.90; 45.60135
4 (CCI C)8.29 [7.51; 9.06]2.20; 26.60135
Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test. RMS, root mean square; CI, confidence interval; Min, minimum; Max, maximum.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and comparison of precision test parameters among different devices (µm).
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and comparison of precision test parameters among different devices (µm).
DeviceRMS ± 95% CI (µm)Min; Max (µm)np
IO 3Shape Trios 311.86 [10.42; 13.30]3.80; 45.601350.097
IO Medit i50011.80 [10.90; 12.70]2.80; 37.10135
Photogrammetry PIC Dental12.42 [11.33; 13.50]1.90; 27.20135
Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test. RMS, root mean square; CI, confidence interval; Min, minimum; Max, maximum.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Faria, J.C.; Sampaio-Fernandes, M.A.; Oliveira, S.J.; Malheiro, R.; Sampaio-Fernandes, J.C.; Figueiral, M.H. Precision of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanning in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031388

AMA Style

Faria JC, Sampaio-Fernandes MA, Oliveira SJ, Malheiro R, Sampaio-Fernandes JC, Figueiral MH. Precision of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanning in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(3):1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031388

Chicago/Turabian Style

Faria, João Carlos, Manuel António Sampaio-Fernandes, Susana João Oliveira, Rodrigo Malheiro, João Carlos Sampaio-Fernandes, and Maria Helena Figueiral. 2025. "Precision of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanning in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An In Vitro Comparative Study" Applied Sciences 15, no. 3: 1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031388

APA Style

Faria, J. C., Sampaio-Fernandes, M. A., Oliveira, S. J., Malheiro, R., Sampaio-Fernandes, J. C., & Figueiral, M. H. (2025). Precision of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanning in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation: An In Vitro Comparative Study. Applied Sciences, 15(3), 1388. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031388

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop