Brakoč Jelena, Todorović Ana, Mangano Francesco Guido, Glišić Mirko, Šćepanović Miodrag
PhD student, Implant-Research Center, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Serbia.
Assistant Professor, Implant-Research Center, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Serbia.
J Dent. 2025 May;156:105654. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105654. Epub 2025 Feb 26.
To evaluate and compare the accuracy of intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) and direct digital impressions in capturing the three-dimensional (3D) implant position in a fully edentulous mandible model with four multi-unit abutments (MUAs).
An edentulous mandibular model with four implant analogs was scanned with a reference desktop scanner (INEOS X5®, Sirona) and four different intraoral scanners (IOSs; TRIOS 5®, 3SHAPE; i700®, MEDIT; Aoralscan 3® and Aoralscan Elite IPG®, SHINING 3D), the latter being equipped with an IPG system. In total, 120 scans (30 per IOS) were captured and saved in standard tessellation language (STL) format. The IOS scans were then compared with the reference desktop scan using a 3D analysis software (Inspect®, ZEISS) to evaluate accuracy through the distance standard deviation, integrated distance, and integrated absolute distance. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics v25® (IBM CORPORATION) and Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.
The IOS equipped with IPG (Aoralscan Elite IPG®) demonstrated the highest accuracy in all measured parameters. It showed a statistically significantly lower (p < 0.01) distance standard deviation, integrated distance, and integrated absolute distance compared to the direct impressions taken with the other three IOSs (TRIOS 5®, i700®, and Aoralscan 3®). Among the direct digital implant impressions without IPG, TRIOS 5® exhibited the best performance, while i700® and Aoralscan 3® showed higher deviations.
Based on the preliminary results of this in vitro study, IPG demonstrated the highest accuracy in all measured parameters compared to direct digital implant impressions with IOSs; however, clinical studies are needed to confirm these results.
IPG might represent an accurate and reliable method for obtaining implant impressions in full-arch cases, offering significant advantages for clinicians in the field of implant prosthodontics.
评估并比较口腔内摄影测量法（IPG）和直接数字印模在全口无牙下颌模型中捕捉四个多单位基台（MUA）三维（3D）种植体位置的准确性。
使用参考台式扫描仪（INEOS X5®，西诺德）和四种不同的口腔内扫描仪（IOS；TRIOS 5®，3Shape；i700®，美迪；Aoralscan 3®和Aoralscan Elite IPG®，先临三维）对带有四个种植体模拟物的无牙下颌模型进行扫描，后者配备了IPG系统。总共采集了120次扫描（每个IOS 30次）并以标准镶嵌语言（STL）格式保存。然后使用三维分析软件（Inspect®，蔡司）将IOS扫描结果与参考台式扫描结果进行比较，通过距离标准差、综合距离和综合绝对距离来评估准确性。使用IBM SPSS Statistics v25®（IBM公司）进行统计分析，并进行Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney检验。
配备IPG的IOS（Aoralscan Elite IPG®）在所有测量参数中显示出最高的准确性。与其他三种IOS（TRIOS 5®、i700®和Aoralscan 3®）的直接印模相比，其距离标准差、综合距离和综合绝对距离在统计学上显著更低（p < 0.01）。在没有IPG的直接数字种植体印模中，TRIOS 5®表现最佳，而i700®和Aoralscan 3®显示出更高的偏差。
基于这项体外研究的初步结果，与使用IOS的直接数字种植体印模相比，IPG在所有测量参数中显示出最高的准确性；然而，需要进行临床研究来证实这些结果。
IPG可能是全牙弓病例中获取种植体印模的一种准确可靠的方法，为种植修复领域的临床医生提供了显著优势。
