Negreiros William Matthew, Sun Teresa Chanting, Jain Shruti, Finkelman Matthew, Gallucci German O, Hamilton Adam
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials Sciences, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Periodontology, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, National Defense Medical Center and Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
J Dent. 2025 Jun 21;161:105928. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105928.
To evaluate the precision of complete-arch digital implant scans using intraoral scanning (IOS) and photogrammetry (PG).
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.
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.
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.
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.
评估使用口内扫描（IOS）和摄影测量法（PG）进行全牙弓数字化种植体扫描的精度。
纳入19个全口无牙颌牙弓。每个牙弓至少包含4颗种植体。使用IOS（3Shape Trios 3）和PG（Imetric ICam 4D，第一代）进行基台水平数字化扫描。每个牙弓使用每种设备扫描5次。提取种植体笛卡尔坐标，并进行空间拟合、跨牙弓距离和虚拟谢菲尔德测试。进行广义估计方程（GEE）分析以比较IOS和PG在三项测试中的精度。使用GEE进一步评估颌骨类型（上颌与下颌）与所有三项测试中每种设备精度之间的关联。显著性水平设定为α = 0.05。
PG在所有三项测试中均显示出更高的精度（p < 0.0001）。PG组的精度与颌骨类型无显著关联（p > 0.05）。对于IOS，在下颌牙弓中，空间拟合（p = 0.040）、跨牙弓距离（p = 0.026）和虚拟谢菲尔德（p = 0.019）测试的精度低于上颌。
PG是用于全牙弓数字化种植体扫描的更精确扫描仪。与下颌扫描相比，上颌牙弓扫描的精度更高，但仅在IOS组中具有统计学意义。
由于精度较差，尤其是在下颌，使用传统扫描体进行IOS扫描用于无牙颌的固定种植修复时应谨慎。PG是用于全牙弓数字化种植体扫描的更精确扫描仪。
