Influence of implant reference on the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured by using a photogrammetry system

Marta Revilla-León; Miguel Gómez-Polo; Michael Drone; Abdul B Barmak; Wael Att; John C Kois; Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.008

Influence of implant reference on the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured by using a photogrammetry system

J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Jan 23:S0022-3913(24)00007-6. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.008. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Marta Revilla-León¹, Miguel Gómez-Polo², Michael Drone³, Abdul B Barmak⁴, Wael Att⁵, John C Kois⁶, Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero⁷

Affiliations

¹ Affiliate Professor, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash; Faculty and Director of Research and Digital Dentistry, Kois Center, Seattle, Wash; and Affiliate Professor, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, Mass.
² Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: mgomezpo@ucm.es.
³ Private practice, Valparaiso, Ind.
⁴ Assistant Professor, Clinical Research and Biostatistics, Eastman Institute of Oral Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY.
⁵ Founder and Director, The Face Dental Group, Boston, Mass; and Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, University Hospital of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
⁶ Founder and Director, Kois Center, Seattle, Wash; Affiliate Professor, Graduate Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash; and Private practice, Seattle, Wash.
⁷ Adjunct Professor, Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.

PMID: 38267350
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.008

Abstract

Statement of problem: Photogrammetry has been reported to be a reliable digital alternative for recording implant positions; however, the factors that may impact the accuracy of photogrammetry techniques remain unknown.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of the implant reference on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans acquired by using a photogrammetry system.

Material and methods: An edentulous cast with 6 implant abutment analogs (MultiUnit Abutment Plus Replica) was obtained and digitized by using a laboratory scanner (T710; Medit). A photogrammetry system (PIC System) was selected to obtain complete arch implant scans. An optical marker (PIC Transfer, HC MUA Metal; PIC Dental) was positioned on each implant abutment of the reference cast. Each optical marker code and position was determined in the photogrammetry software program. Three groups were created based on the implant reference selected before acquiring the photogrammetry scans: right first molar (IPR-3 group), left canine (IPR-11 group), and left first molar (IPR-14 group) (n=30). Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the digitized reference cast and used to compare the discrepancies with the same measurements obtained on each experimental scan. One-way ANOVA and the Tukey tests were used to analyze the trueness data. The Levene test was used to analyze the precision values (α=.05 for all tests).

Results: One-way ANOVA revealed significant linear (P=.003) and angular (P=.009) trueness differences among the groups tested. Additionally, the Tukey test showed that the IPR-11 and IPR-14 groups had significantly different linear (P<.001) and angular trueness (P<.001). The Levene test showed no significant precision linear (P=.197) and angular (P=.235) discrepancies among the groups tested. The IPR-3 group obtained the highest trueness (P<.001) and precision (P<.001) values among the groups tested.

Conclusions: Implant reference impacted the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using the photogrammetry system tested. However, a trueness ±precision linear discrepancy of 6 ±3 µm and an angular discrepancy of 0.01 ±0.01 degrees were measured among the groups tested; therefore, the impact of the discrepancy measured should not be clinically significant.