Journal of dentistry · 2025
Precision of complete-arch digital implant scans using photogrammetry and intra-oral scanning. An in vivo cross-over study: Complete-Arch Implant Scans: Photogrammetry vs IOS.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Negreiros William Matthew, Sun Teresa Chanting, Jain Shruti, Finkelman Matthew, Gallucci German O, Hamilton Adam
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the precision of complete-arch digital implant scans using intraoral scanning (IOS) and photogrammetry (PG).
METHODS: Nineteen completely edentulous arches were included. Each arches contained at least four implants. Abutment-level digital scans were taken using IOS (3Shape Trios 3) and PG (Imetric ICam 4D, 1st gen). Each arch was scanned five times with each device. Implant cartesian coordinates were extracted, and the Spatial Fit, Cross-Arch Distance, and Virtual Sheffield tests were conducted. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) analysis was conducted to compare the precision of IOS and PG for the three tests. A GEE was used to assess further the association between jaw type (maxilla vs. mandible) and the precision for each device in all three tests. The significance level was set at α=0.05.
RESULTS: PG demonstrated greater precision in all three tests (p < 0.0001). Precision was not significantly associated with jaw type in the PG group (p > 0.05). For IOS, the mandibular arch demonstrated inferior levels of precision compared to the maxilla for the Spatial Fit (p = 0.040), Cross-Arch Distance (p = 0.026), and Virtual Sheffield (p = 0.019) tests.
CONCLUSION: PG represented a more precise scanner for complete-arch digital implant scans. Maxillary arch scans were associated with superior precision compared to scans of the mandible, yet statistical significance was only found in the IOS group.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: IOS scanning for fixed implant rehabilitation of the edentulous jaw with conventional scan bodies should be approached with caution due to the poor precision, particularly in the mandible. PG represented a more precise scanner for complete-arch digital implant scans.
METHODS: Nineteen completely edentulous arches were included. Each arches contained at least four implants. Abutment-level digital scans were taken using IOS (3Shape Trios 3) and PG (Imetric ICam 4D, 1st gen). Each arch was scanned five times with each device. Implant cartesian coordinates were extracted, and the Spatial Fit, Cross-Arch Distance, and Virtual Sheffield tests were conducted. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) analysis was conducted to compare the precision of IOS and PG for the three tests. A GEE was used to assess further the association between jaw type (maxilla vs. mandible) and the precision for each device in all three tests. The significance level was set at α=0.05.
RESULTS: PG demonstrated greater precision in all three tests (p < 0.0001). Precision was not significantly associated with jaw type in the PG group (p > 0.05). For IOS, the mandibular arch demonstrated inferior levels of precision compared to the maxilla for the Spatial Fit (p = 0.040), Cross-Arch Distance (p = 0.026), and Virtual Sheffield (p = 0.019) tests.
CONCLUSION: PG represented a more precise scanner for complete-arch digital implant scans. Maxillary arch scans were associated with superior precision compared to scans of the mandible, yet statistical significance was only found in the IOS group.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: IOS scanning for fixed implant rehabilitation of the edentulous jaw with conventional scan bodies should be approached with caution due to the poor precision, particularly in the mandible. PG represented a more precise scanner for complete-arch digital implant scans.