Journal of dentistry · 2026
Comparison of accuracy in full-arch implant impressions using conventional, intraoral, and photogrammetric techniques: an in vitro study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ye Yuer, Lin Mengna, Qu Yutao, Gong Jingyao, Wang Chengze, Wang Yujie, He Fuming
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the accuracy of conventional impression (CNV), extraoral photogrammetry (EPG), intraoral photogrammetry (IPG), two intraoral scanners (IOSs), and three intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) for capturing an edentulous model with six implant analogs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An edentulous mandibular master stone cast with six implant analogs was digitized using a desktop scanner. Stone casts obtained from CNV were scanned using the same laboratory scanner. Digital scans of the master cast were obtained using an EPG system (ICam4D, ICam), an IPG system (Aoralscan Elite, Elite), and two IOSs (TRIOS 5 and AS 200E) combined with three ISBs (Truefit Pro5, Truefit; Digital Wings, DW, and DirectIP, DIP) (n = 20). Scan trueness was evaluated using root mean square (RMS), interimplant linear, distance, and angular deviations, with master model scans as the reference. Precision was defined as the variance of deviations within each group.
RESULTS: The DIP group showed comparable RMS and interimplant linear trueness deviations to the ICam group (p > .05). The Elite group exhibited the best angular trueness (p < .001). No significant differences in precision deviations were found among the ICam, Elite, and DIP groups (p > .05). Among the three groups, only ICam group demonstrated significantly lower deviations than CNV, Truefit, and DW groups across all precision parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of full-arch implant impressions was influenced by the scanning technology used. EPG demonstrated the highest overall accuracy, whereas Elite and DIP also showed favorable performance.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The accuracy of full-arch implant impressions is significantly influenced by the selection of ISBs and IOS systems. EPG remains a highly accurate method for recording full-arch digital implant positions, while IPG and DIP may also be promising alternatives.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An edentulous mandibular master stone cast with six implant analogs was digitized using a desktop scanner. Stone casts obtained from CNV were scanned using the same laboratory scanner. Digital scans of the master cast were obtained using an EPG system (ICam4D, ICam), an IPG system (Aoralscan Elite, Elite), and two IOSs (TRIOS 5 and AS 200E) combined with three ISBs (Truefit Pro5, Truefit; Digital Wings, DW, and DirectIP, DIP) (n = 20). Scan trueness was evaluated using root mean square (RMS), interimplant linear, distance, and angular deviations, with master model scans as the reference. Precision was defined as the variance of deviations within each group.
RESULTS: The DIP group showed comparable RMS and interimplant linear trueness deviations to the ICam group (p > .05). The Elite group exhibited the best angular trueness (p < .001). No significant differences in precision deviations were found among the ICam, Elite, and DIP groups (p > .05). Among the three groups, only ICam group demonstrated significantly lower deviations than CNV, Truefit, and DW groups across all precision parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of full-arch implant impressions was influenced by the scanning technology used. EPG demonstrated the highest overall accuracy, whereas Elite and DIP also showed favorable performance.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The accuracy of full-arch implant impressions is significantly influenced by the selection of ISBs and IOS systems. EPG remains a highly accurate method for recording full-arch digital implant positions, while IPG and DIP may also be promising alternatives.