International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026
Precision, patient satisfaction and impression time with complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral scanning, dental photogrammetry and conventional impressions: An experimental clinical study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Robert Nathalie, Noharet Renaud, Bechet Eric, Albert Adelin, Lamy Marc
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the precision, patient satisfaction and efficiency achieved with three complete-arch implant impression techniques: intraoral scanning, dental photogrammetry and conventional plaster impressions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants with a completely edentulous maxilla or mandible rehabilitated with four to eight implants were included in the study. Each participant underwent six impressions: two using an intraoral scanner, two using a photogrammetry system and two using the conventional open-tray plaster technique. The precision of each impression method was assessed in terms of positioning and angular errors, specifically by the residual mean square and global deflection error. For each of these parameters, impression techniques were compared with a non-parametric Friedman test. Patient satisfaction was evaluated on a visual analogue scale across six domains, and the total time taken for the impression was recorded for each technique.
RESULTS: Dental photogrammetry demonstrated the greatest overall precision, with the lowest root mean square error (0.030 ± 0.014 mm) compared to intraoral scanning (0.117 ± 0.068 mm) and plaster (0.110 ± 0.045 mm) (P 0.0001) and the lowest global deflection error (0.349 ± 0.499 degrees) compared to intraoral scanning (1.140 ± 0.556 degrees) and plaster (0.901 ± 0.643 degrees) (P 0.0001). Patient satisfaction was higher for the two digital techniques than for the conventional method. Intraoral scanning was the fastest technique, whereas plaster impressions and photogrammetry required more chair time.
CONCLUSIONS: Photogrammetry offers superior precision and favourable patient acceptance for complete-arch implant impressions compared to intraoral scanning and conventional methods. Although intraoral scanning is the fastest method, its precision remains lower in edentulous patients. Photogrammetry could be a valuable alternative in digital workflows for complete-arch impressions.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants with a completely edentulous maxilla or mandible rehabilitated with four to eight implants were included in the study. Each participant underwent six impressions: two using an intraoral scanner, two using a photogrammetry system and two using the conventional open-tray plaster technique. The precision of each impression method was assessed in terms of positioning and angular errors, specifically by the residual mean square and global deflection error. For each of these parameters, impression techniques were compared with a non-parametric Friedman test. Patient satisfaction was evaluated on a visual analogue scale across six domains, and the total time taken for the impression was recorded for each technique.
RESULTS: Dental photogrammetry demonstrated the greatest overall precision, with the lowest root mean square error (0.030 ± 0.014 mm) compared to intraoral scanning (0.117 ± 0.068 mm) and plaster (0.110 ± 0.045 mm) (P 0.0001) and the lowest global deflection error (0.349 ± 0.499 degrees) compared to intraoral scanning (1.140 ± 0.556 degrees) and plaster (0.901 ± 0.643 degrees) (P 0.0001). Patient satisfaction was higher for the two digital techniques than for the conventional method. Intraoral scanning was the fastest technique, whereas plaster impressions and photogrammetry required more chair time.
CONCLUSIONS: Photogrammetry offers superior precision and favourable patient acceptance for complete-arch implant impressions compared to intraoral scanning and conventional methods. Although intraoral scanning is the fastest method, its precision remains lower in edentulous patients. Photogrammetry could be a valuable alternative in digital workflows for complete-arch impressions.
CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST STATEMENT: The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest relating to this study.