Statement of problem
Photogrammetry technology has been used for the digitalization of multiple dental implants, but its trueness and precision remain uncertain.
The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of multisite implant recordings between the conventional method and a photogrammetry dental system.
Material and methods
A definitive cast of an edentulous maxilla with 6 implant abutment replicas was tested. Two different recording methods were compared, the conventional technique and a photogrammetry digital scan (n=10). For the conventional group, the impression copings were splinted to an additively manufactured cobalt-chromium metal with autopolymerizing acrylic resin, followed by recording the maxillary edentulous arch with an elastomeric impression using an additively manufactured open custom tray. For the photogrammetry group, a scan body was placed on each implant abutment replica, followed by the photogrammetry digital scan. A coordinate-measuring machine was selected to assess the linear, angular, and 3-dimensional discrepancies between the implant abutment replica positions of the reference cast and the specimens by using a computer-aided design program. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the data were not normally distributed. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the data (α=.05).
The conventional group obtained an overall accuracy (trueness ±precision) value of 18.40 ±6.81 μm, whereas the photogrammetry group showed an overall scanning accuracy value of 20.15 ±25.41 μm. Significant differences on the discrepancies on the x axis (U=1380.00, P=.027), z axis (U=601.00, P<.001), XZ angle (U=869.00, P<.001), and YZ angle (U=788.00, P<.001) were observed when the measurements of the 2 groups were compared. Furthermore, significant 3-dimensional discrepancy for implant 1 (U=0.00, P<.001), implant 2 (U=0.00, P<.001), implant 3 (U=6.00, P<.001), and implant 6 (U=9.00, P<.001) were computed between the groups.
The conventional method obtained statistically significant higher overall accuracy values compared with the photogrammetry system tested, with a trueness difference of 1.8 μm and a precision difference of 18.6 μm between the systems. The conventional method transferred the implant abutment positions with a uniform 3-dimensional discrepancy, but the photogrammetry system obtained an uneven overall discrepancy among the implant abutment positions.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Elements of photogrammetry with applications in GIS.4th ed. McGraw-Hill Education Books, New York, NY2014: 1-3
- Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures.Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5: 30-36
- Photogrammetry - an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study.Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12: 363-368
- Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7: 43-50
- Integration of 3D anatomical data obtained by CT imaging and 3D optical scanning for computer aided implant surgery.BMC Med Imaging. 2011; 11: 5
- Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014; 19: e366-e371
- An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 243-251
- Photogrammetry impression technique: a case history report.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 71-73
- Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 703-711
- A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: a randomized controlled pilot clinical trial.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 596-603
- Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 506-510
- Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 470-478
- ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measuring methods and results. Part-I: general principles and definitions.Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin1994 (Available at:)
- Impression technique for a complete-arch prosthesis with multiple implants using additive manufacturing technologies.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 714-720
- Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface.J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75: 314-325
- Intraoral digital scans-part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 372-378
- Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner.J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 107-113
- Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: a clinical study.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 264-268
- Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 755-761
- Dimensional changes of dental impression materials by thermal changes.J Biomed Mater Res. 2001; 58: 217-220
Published online: June 18, 2021
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.