Accuracy of implant scans recorded using tablet-based photogrammetry and noncalibrated implant scan body systems.

Do ambient lighting conditions affect the accuracy of implant position capture for complete arch prostheses using intraoral photogrammetry?

Registration accuracy of soft tissue information scan captured using an intraoral scanner and implant position scan recorded using extraoral and intraoral photogrammetry systems.

Does the interimplant scan body distance impact the scanning accuracy of an intraoral photogrammetry system?

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of complete arch implant scanning techniques performed extraorally: Reverse impression and extraoral photogrammetry methods. Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics.

Maxillary implant workflow guided by anatomic structures as the predominant reference landmark for noncalibrated, extraoral, and intraoral photogrammetry implant scanning techniques.

Clinical accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using a noncalibrated splinting technique, intraoral photogrammetry, and extraoral photogrammetry with snap-on markers.

Endoscopic endonasal surgery (EEA) is a standard approach for treating pituitary tumors, requiring a specialized operating room setup, surgical skills and technique, and step-by-step protocol. This translational study optimizes different algorithms of photogrammetry (PGM) and videogrammetry (VGM) to create interactive 3D models for EEA while maintaining intraoperative efficiency, sterility, and data privacy. This investigation aimed to implement an optimal and efficient intraoperative endoscopic PGM and VGM algorithm to generate detailed and interactive 3D models of key surgical steps, EEA, without compromising sterility and efficiency. PGM and VGM were first tested in an anatomy laboratory to refine an algorithm for endoscopic scanning. Eighty photographs or 2 minutes of endoscopic video were sufficient to create 3D models. Later, this approach was applied intraoperatively in EEA. Patient positioning and important surgical steps were scanned using a smartphone camera (2-dimensional photographs and LiDAR sensor) and a high-definition 30° endoscope video was recorded with an endoscopic camera. A dedicated PGM software enabling the creation of detailed 3D models was used. Six 3D anatomic and intraoperative models were developed, illustrating key surgical steps, anatomic landmarks, and the operative environment from various endoscopic perspectives. The process maintained intraoperative sterility and efficiency. Two explanatory videos were produced. PGM and VGM offer an effective, intraoperative 3D data acquisition tool in EEA. These techniques enhance surgical documentation and training by providing high-resolution, interactive models offering a detailed understanding of the operative corridor and critical procedural steps without compromising safety, sterility, or the time of the surgical procedure.

This narrative review examines the application of photogrammetry (PG) in complete-arch implant fixed prosthodontics, as it offers an alternative to conventional and intraoral scanning (IOS) impression techniques. Evidence from invitro and invivo studies suggests that PG provides high trueness and precision. The technique supports both immediate and delayed loading workflows, potentially reducing prosthetic misfit and chairside adjustments. Limitations include the need for separate IOS scans to capture soft tissues and occlusion, the cost of the device, and the restricted scanning scope. Future improvements in integration and accessibility may broaden its role in implant dentistry.

Capturing complete arch implant positions in two partial photogrammetry scans: Does it impact the accuracy of complete arch implant scans?

Accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using intraoral and extraoral photogrammetry systems.

Accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using calibrated scanning techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics.

PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of implant angulation on the trueness and precision of intraoral scanning (IOS) using different prefabricated auxiliary device (PAD) designs and to compare the results with two photogrammetry (PG) systems.Materials and methodsThree master models with 5 implants were fabricated to simulate edentulous maxillary arches, featuring implant configurations including all implants parallel, one implant angulated 25° mesially, and one implant angulated 25° distally. Five digital impression techniques were evaluated: IOS (Cerec Primescan) without PADs (IOS), with crown-shaped PADs (IOS-C), with laterally extended PADs (IOS-LE), and two PG systems (ICam4D G3: PG-I, OxoCore: PG-O). Reference data were acquired using a laboratory scanner, and implant center coordinates in both reference and test datasets were determined in Geomagic Control X for deviation calculations. Linear deviations (LD), angular deviations (AD), and root mean squared error (RMS) values were calculated to assess trueness and precision, and were statistically analyzed.ResultsSignificant accuracy differences were observed between the PG systems, with PG-I exhibiting the lowest RMS values (18 ± 3.27 μm) across all models and maintaining deviations within clinically acceptable thresholds (P<0.01). IOS-LE showed significantly lower RMS and AD values compared to IOS and IOS-C. Implant angulation negatively affected the trueness of IOS, IOS-C, and PG-O, particularly with distal angulation (P<0.01), while PG-I and IOS-LE remained unaffected (P > 0.05). Implant angulation did not significantly affect precision (P = 0.328).ConclusionPG-I demonstrated the highest accuracy. Implant angulation compromised IOS trueness, but laterally extended PADs improved accuracy, making IOS comparable to PG systems.Clinical significanceThese findings indicate that, even in angulated full‑arch implant cases, photogrammetry (PG‑I) and IOS with laterally extended PADs provide clinically acceptable accuracy and may serve as reliable digital impression techniques in practice.

Comparative accuracy of photogrammetry and intraoral scanners in recordings for complete arch implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

An Open Source Tool to Conduct 3-Dimensional Morphometric Analysis of Microneurosurgical Corridors: Technical Note and Anatomical Validation Study Using Surface Scanning Techniques.

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.

Reliability of a laser pointer device and photogrammetry in the evaluation of cervical flexion and side bending motions.

Complete arch implant capture using a photogrammetry algorithm and smartphone app: An in vitro study.

Alignment accuracy of soft tissue and implant position scans captured by using four intraoral scanners and an intraoral photogrammetry system with and without coded healing abutments.

Accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using intraoral and extraoral photogrammetry systems and a noncalibrated splinting technique: A clinical study.