Fu Xiao-Jiao, Cai Zheng-Zhen, Shi Jun-Yu, Qiao Shi-Chong, Tonetti Maurizio S, Lai Hong-Chang, Liu Bei-Lei
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantology, Shanghai PerioImplant Innovation Center, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, National Center for Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, Shanghai, China.
European Research Group on Periodontology, Genova, Italy.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2025 Aug;36(8):991-999. doi: 10.1111/clr.14445. Epub 2025 May 7.
To compare the accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions using four digital techniques: extraoral photogrammetry (EPG), intraoral scanning with original scan body (IOS), intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids (IOSA), and intraoral photogrammetry (IPG).
One edentulous maxillary master model with six parallel abutment analogs was scanned by a laboratory scanner as the reference scan. EPG, IOS, IOSA, and IPG were used to scan the master model with respective scan bodies as test scans. Ten scanning data were gained for each technique. Trueness and precision of root mean square (RMS) errors were measured between the test and reference scans. Deviations in distance and angle relative to the reference scan between all pairs of abutment analogs were measured. Scanning time was recorded.
IPG showed significantly best trueness in RMS errors (IPG, 26.37 ± 1.02 μm; EPG, 31.72 ± 0.59 μm; IOS, 39.93 ± 7.98 μm; IOSA, 50.60 ± 12.46 μm), (all p < 0.050). EPG showed significantly best precision in RMS errors (EPG, 2.30 ± 1.31 μm; IPG, 4.12 ± 0.87 μm; IOS, 33.38 ± 13.95 μm; IOSA, 28.35 ± 11.48 μm), (all p < 0.001). IPG demonstrated significantly best performance in distance deviation (IPG, 28.59 ± 24.75 μm; EPG, 55.55 ± 37.82 μm; IOS, 62.97 ± 50.60 μm; IOSA, 93.37 ± 72.15 μm), (all p < 0.050). No significant differences were found regarding angle deviation (p = 0.313). IOSA showed the longest scanning duration (IPG: 50.30 ± 6.77 s; EPG: 57.40 ± 5.19 s; IOS: 91.10 ± 20.31 s; IOSA: 125.00 ± 18.74 s), (all p < 0.001).
IPG achieved comparable accuracy with EPG in complete-arch implant digital impressions in vitro. IPG offers an efficient and straightforward workflow, making it a valuable alternative method; however, further clinical studies are needed to validate its efficacy.
比较四种数字技术用于全牙弓种植体印模的准确性，这四种技术分别为口外摄影测量法（EPG）、使用原装扫描体的口内扫描（IOS）、使用预制辅助工具的口内扫描（IOSA）和口内摄影测量法（IPG）。
用实验室扫描仪扫描一个带有六个平行基台代型的无牙上颌主模型作为参考扫描。使用EPG、IOS、IOSA和IPG，分别用各自的扫描体扫描主模型作为测试扫描。每种技术获取10组扫描数据。测量测试扫描与参考扫描之间的均方根（RMS）误差的准确性和精密度。测量所有基台代型对之间相对于参考扫描的距离和角度偏差。记录扫描时间。
IPG在RMS误差方面显示出显著最佳的准确性（IPG，26.37±1.02μm；EPG，31.72±0.59μm；IOS，39.93±7.98μm；IOSA，50.60±12.46μm），（所有p<0.050）。EPG在RMS误差方面显示出显著最佳的精密度（EPG，2.30±1.31μm；IPG，4.12±0.87μm；IOS，33.38±13.95μm；IOSA，28.35±11.48μm），（所有p<0.001）。IPG在距离偏差方面表现出显著最佳的性能（IPG，28.59±24.75μm；EPG，55.55±37.82μm；IOS，62.97±50.60μm；IOSA，93.37±72.15μm），（所有p<0.050）。在角度偏差方面未发现显著差异（p = 0.313）。IOSA显示出最长的扫描持续时间（IPG：50.30±6.77秒；EPG：57.40±5.19秒；IOS：91.10±20.31秒；IOSA：125.00±18.74秒），（所有p<0.001）。
在体外全牙弓种植体数字印模中，IPG与EPG具有相当的准确性。IPG提供了一种高效且直接的工作流程，使其成为一种有价值的替代方法；然而，需要进一步的临床研究来验证其有效性。
