Influence of connected and nonconnected calibrated frameworks on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using four intraoral scanners, a desktop scanner, and a photogrammetry system

J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Sep;134(3):800-808. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.017. Epub 2024 Mar 4.

Abstract

Statement of problem: Different techniques have been proposed for increasing the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs), including a calibrated metal framework (IOSFix); however, its accuracy remains uncertain.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of complete arch scans obtained with connecting and non-connecting the implant scan bodies (ISBs) recorded using intraoral scanners (IOSs), a laboratory scanner (LBS), and photogrammetry (PG).

Material and methods: A cast with 6 implant abutment analogs was obtained. Six groups were created: TRIOS 4, i700, iTero, CS3800, LBS, and PG groups. The IOSs and LBS groups were divided into 3 subgroups: nonconnected ISBs (ISB), splinted ISBs (SSB), and calibrated framework (CF), (n=15). For the ISB subgroups, an ISB was positioned on each implant abutment analog. For the SSB subgroups, a printed framework was used to connect the ISBs. For the CF subgroups, a calibrated framework (IOSFix) was used to connect the ISBs. For the PG group, scans were captured using a PG (PIC Camera). Implant positions of the reference cast were measured using a coordinate measurement machine, and Euclidean distances were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies using the same distances obtained on each experimental scan. Wilcoxon squares 2-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α=.05).

Results: Linear and angular discrepancies were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001). Linear (P=.008) and angular (P<.001) precision differences were found among the subgroups.

Conclusions: The digitizing method and technique impacted the trueness and precision of the implant scans. The photogrammetry and calibrated framework groups obtained the best accuracy. Except for TRIOS 4, the calibrated framework method improved the accuracy of the scans obtained by using the IOSs tested.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Calibration
  • Computer-Aided Design
  • Dental Implants*
  • Dental Prosthesis Design
  • Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
  • Humans
  • In Vitro Techniques
  • Models, Dental
  • Photogrammetry* / instrumentation
  • Photogrammetry* / methods

Substances

  • Dental Implants