Influence of the Number of Implants on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Impressions: In Vitro Comparison of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanners Using a Coordinate Measurement Machine.

Robert, Nathalie; Albert, Adelin; Béchet, Eric; Lamy, Marc

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106723

Article (Scientific journals)

Influence of the Number of Implants on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Impressions: In Vitro Comparison of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanners Using a Coordinate Measurement Machine.

Robert, Nathalie; Albert, Adelin; Béchet, Eric et al.

2026 • In Journal of Dentistry, p. 106723

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/345048

DOI
10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106723

PubMed
42066886

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

VersionOrbi.pdf

Embargo Until 29/Oct/2026 - Author postprint (1.28 MB)

Request a copy

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Accuracy; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Mouth, Edentulous; Photogrammetry

Abstract :

[en] [en] OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of the number of implants on the accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions using different photogrammetry systems and an intraoral scanner, and to assess the effect of scan body repositioning on impression reproducibility. METHODS: Three maxillary stone casts containing four, six, and eight implants, respectively, were manufactured. Impressions were obtained using four techniques: extraoral photogrammetry (PG), navigated photogrammetry (NPG), intraoral photogrammetry (IPG), and intraoral scanner (IOS). For each configuration, ten impressions were recorded under fixed scan body conditions and ten with two repositioned scan bodies. A coordinate measurement machine (Wenzel LH 8-15-7, Germany) provided reference coordinates. Linear deviations were assessed by the root mean square (RMS, mm) and the angular deviation was calculated as the mean of absolute angular deviations (MEAN-D, °) using custom-developed software. Experimental data were analyzed using linear regression analysis (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Photogrammetry systems demonstrated superior accuracy to intraoral scanning. PG achieved the lowest linear deviation (0.037 mm) followed by IPG (0.057 mm) and NPG (0.077 mm), whereas IOS exhibited the highest deviations (0.099 mm). Mean angular deviation (MEAN-D) was 0.16° (PG), 0.40° (IPG), 0.33° (NPG), and 0.78° (IOS). Regression analyses showed that RMS increased with the number of implants, while MEAN-D decreased. Significant differences were found between all impression techniques, while scan body repositioning had no clinically meaningful effect across systems. Overall precision (CV) was 24.9% for RMS and 28.6% for MEAN-D, and for both parameters precision was highest for PG and lowest for IOS. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this in vitro study, photogrammetry provides superior accuracy (trueness and precision) compared to intraoral scanning for complete-arch implant impressions. The number of implants influences accuracy, whereas scan body repositioning has minimal effect. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These findings highlight the in vitro performance of photogrammetry systems and their potential applicability in complete-arch digital implant workflows.

Research Center/Unit :

d‐BRU - Dental Biomaterials Research Unit - ULiège

Disciplines :

Dentistry & oral medicine

Author, co-author :

Robert, Nathalie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Biomatériaux dentaires ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dental biomaterials research unit (d-BRU) ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > > Service prothèse amovible

Albert, Adelin ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique

Béchet, Eric ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département d'aérospatiale et mécanique > Conception géométrique assistée par ordinateur

Lamy, Marc ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences dentaires > Prothèse amovible - Diagnostic oral

Language :

English

Title :

Influence of the Number of Implants on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Impressions: In Vitro Comparison of Photogrammetry and Intraoral Scanners Using a Coordinate Measurement Machine.

Publication date :

29 April 2026

Journal title :

Journal of Dentistry

ISSN :

0300-5712

eISSN :

1879-176X

Publisher :

Elsevier BV, England

Pages :

106723

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0300571226003933?httpAccept=text/xml

Available on ORBi :

since 18 May 2026

Statistics

Number of views

31 (3 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

2 (2 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

Abduo, J., Judge, R., Implications of implant framework misfit: a systematic review of biomechanical sequelae. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 29 (2014), 608–621, 10.11607/jomi.3418.
Katsoulis, J., Takeichi, T., Gaviria, A.S., Peter, L., Katsoulis, K., Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 10 (2017), 121–138.
Jemt, T., Three-dimensional distortion of gold alloy castings and welded titanium frameworks. Measurements of the precision of fit between completed implant prostheses and the master casts in routine edentulous situations. J. Oral Rehabil. 22 (1995), 557–564, 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1995.tb01049.x.
Jemt, T., In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 11 (1996), 151–158.
Joda, T., Brägger, U., Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 27 (2016), e185–e189, 10.1111/clr.12600.
Joda, T., Brägger, U., Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 26 (2014), 1430–1435, 10.1111/clr.12476.
Mühlemann, S., Kraus, R.D., Hämmerle, C.H.F., Thoma, D.S., Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: a systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 29 (2018), 184–195, 10.1111/clr.13300.
Flügge, T., Att, W., Metzger, M., Nelson, K., Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int. J. Prosthodont. 29 (2016), 277–283, 10.11607/ijp.4417.
Papaspyridakos, P., Vazouras, K., Chen, Y.-W., Kotina, E., Natto, Z., Kang, K., Chochlidakis, K., Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Prosthodont. 29 (2020), 660–668, 10.1111/jopr.13211.
Wulfman, C., Naveau, A., Rignon-Bret, C., Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: a systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 124 (2019), 161–167, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.014.
Huang, R., Liu, Y., Huang, B., Zhang, C., Chen, Z., Li, Z., Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 31 (2020), 625–633, 10.1111/clr.13598.
Arcuri, L., Pozzi, A., Lio, F., Rompen, E., Zechner, W., Nardi, A., Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J. Prosthodont. Res. 64 (2020), 128–136, 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001.
Mizumoto, R.M., Yilmaz, B., McGlumphy, E.A., Seidt, J., Johnston, W.M., Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J. Prosthet. Dent. 123 (2020), 96–104, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.003.
Pozzi, A., Arcuri, L., Lio, F., Papa, A., Nardi, A., Londono, J., Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: an in vitro study. J. Dent., 119, 2022, 104072, 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104072.
Revilla-León, M., Kois, D.E., Kois, J.C., A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: operator factors. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 35 (2023), 230–240, 10.1111/jerd.12985.
Chen, Y., Zhai, Z., Li, H., Yamada, S., Matsuoka, T., Ono, S., Nakano, T., Influence of liquid on the tooth surface on the accuracy of intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J. Prosthodont. 31 (2022), 59–64, 10.1111/jopr.13358.
Grande, F., Mosca Balma, A., Mussano, F., Catapano, S., Effect of implant scan body type, intraoral scanner and scan strategy on the accuracy and scanning time of a maxillary complete arch implant scans: an in vitro study. J. Dent., 159, 2025, 105782, 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105782.
Grande, F., Nuytens, P., Zahabiyoun, D.S., Iocca, O., Catapano, S., Mijiritsky, E., Factors influencing the intraoral implant scan accuracy: a review of the literature. J. Dent., 161, 2025, 105973, 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105973.
Revell, G., Simon, B., Mennito, A., Evans, Z.P., Renne, W., Ludlow, M., Vág, J., Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience. J. Prosthet. Dent. 128 (2022), 632–638, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.013.
Ma, B., Yue, X., Sun, Y., Peng, L., Geng, W., Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health, 21, 2021, 636, 10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0.
Negreiros, W.M., Sun, T.C., Jain, S., Finkelman, M., Gallucci, G.O., Hamilton, A., 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. J. Dent., 2025, 105928, 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105928.
Pozzi, A., Arcuri, L., Carosi, P., Laureti, A., Londono, J., Wang, H.L., Photogrammetry versus intraoral scanning in complete-arch digital implant impression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res., 27, 2025, e70059, 10.1111/cid.70059.
Lyu, M., Li, Y., Xu, D., Xing, Q., Zhang, S., Yuan, Q., Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression for multiple implants: an in vitro study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res., 27, 2025, e13419, 10.1111/cid.13419.
Revilla-León, M., Gómez-Polo, M., Drone, M., Barmak, A.B., Kois, J.C., Pérez-Barquero, J.Alonso, Accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using intraoral and extraoral photogrammetry systems. J. Prosthet. Dent. 134 (2025), 2508–2514, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.01.041.
Pozzi, A., Laureti, A., Tawil, I., Chow, J., Azevedo, L., Fehmer, V., Sailer, I., Intraoral photogrammetry: trueness evaluation of novel technology for implant complete-arch digital impression in vitro. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res., 27, 2025, e70049, 10.1111/cid.70049.
DeFee, M., Renne, W., Shazib, M.A., Queiroz, A., Mennito, A., Borbola, D., Vag, J., Virtual-fit assessment of full-arch implant photogrammetry accuracy in a human cadaver model. J. Dent., 2026, 106668, 10.1016/j.jdent.2026.106668.
Mangano, F.G., Lerner, H., Valle, G., Biaggini, F., Mangano, C., Dybov, A., Trueness of extraoral photogrammetry, intraoral photogrammetry and direct intraoral scanning in the full-arch digital implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. J. Dent., 165, 2026, 106269, 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106269.
Robert, N., Bechet, E., Albert, A., Lamy, M., Influence of the scanning path on the accuracy of intraoral scanners in the implanted edentulous patient: an in vitro study. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 28 (2025), 117–127, 10.3290/j.ijcd.b5036725.
Borbola, D., Vag, J., Unifying intraoral scanner, computer-aided manufacturing, and final crown accuracy: a virtual-fit method for marginal gap evaluation. J. Dent., 163, 2025, 106113, 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106113.
Grande, F., Mussano, F., Balma, A.M., Lepidi, L., Nuytens, P., Mijiritsky, E., Catapano, S., Effect of virtual casts superimposition strategies on the estimation of IOS accuracy in complete-arch scans. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 32 (2024), 369–376, 10.1922/ejprd_2737grande08.
Ender, A., Zimmermann, M., Mehl, A., Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 22 (2019), 11–19, 10.5167/uzh-180700.
Jemt, T., Hjalmarsson, L., In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 14:Suppl. 1 (2012), 175–182, 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x.
Revilla-León, M., Gohil, A., Barmak, A.B., Zandinejad, A., Raigrodski, A.J., Pérez-Barquero, J.Alonso, Best-fit algorithm influences on virtual casts’ alignment discrepancies. J. Prosthodont. 32 (2023), 331–339, 10.1111/jopr.13537.
Vág, J., Nagy, Z., Simon, B., Mikolicz, Á., Kövér, E., Mennito, A., Evans, Z., Renne, W., A novel method for complex three-dimensional evaluation of intraoral scanner accuracy. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 22 (2019), 239–249.
Vag, J., Romanszky, L., Sersli, G., DeFee, M., Renne, W., Mangano, F., Borbola, D., Application of the virtual-fit method for fixed complete denture cases designed on intraoral scans: effect of cement spacing. J. Dent., 141, 2024, 104780, 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104780.
Li, J., Chen, Z., Nava, P., Yang, S., Calatrava, J., Wang, H.L., Calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) for full-arch implant impressions: an in vitro comparison to conventional impression, intraoral scan, and intraoral scan with scan-aid. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 26 (2024), 879–888, 10.1111/cid.13338.
Kanjanasavitree, P., Thammajaruk, P., Guazzato, M., Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans. J. Dent., 125, 2022, 104266, 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104266.
Laureti, A., Marques, T., Pitta, J., Fehmer, V., Sailer, I., Pozzi, A., Azevedo, L., Influence of horizontal intraoral scan bodies on the trueness of digital impressions for complete-arch prostheses on four implants: an in vitro evaluation. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 36 (2025), 1287–1295, 10.1111/clr.70001.
Bader Eddin, M.B., Önöral, Ö., Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans. J. Prosthet. Dent. 132 (2024), 828.e1–828.e12, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.001.
Prott, L.S., Atria, P.J., Maluf, C.V., Blatz, M.B., Conejo, J., In vitro comparison between complete arch abutment-level implant impressions with photogrammetry, grammetry, and intraoral scanning. J. Prosthet. Dent. 134 (2025), 782.e1–782.e7, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.05.009.
Liu, M., Fu, X.J., Lai, H.C., Shi, J.Y., Liu, B.L., Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: an in vitro study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 132 (2024), 602.e1–602.e9, 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.06.006.