This analysis compares the accuracy of conventional, digital, and stereophotogrammetry methods, suggesting critical factors include implant distance and angulation.
To evaluate the accuracy of conventional impression techniques, intraoral scanning, and two stereophotogrammetry systems (PIC and ICam4D) for complete-arch implant restorations, and to analyze the influence of varying interimplant distance and implant angulation on the accuracy of each impression method. A total of 6 edentulous maxillary all-on-four casts were fabricated with varying posterior implant parameters, including anterior-posterior (A-P) distances of 20 mm and 35 mm and distal implant angulations of 0°, 15°, and 25°. Impressions were obtained using conventional impression techniques, intraoral scanning, and two stereophotogrammetry systems (PIC and ICam4D). The three-dimensional deviations of the impression techniques were measured using reverse-engineering software to evaluate trueness and precision. The accuracy of intraoral scanning technology exhibited a declining trend with increasing A-P distance and implant angulation. The maximum deviations in trueness and precision were observed in the posterior region with an A-P distance of 35 mm and a distal implant angulation of 25°, measuring (76.90 ± 43.32) μm and (99.43 ± 74.39) μm, respectively. The conventional impression techniques exhibited stable performance, with mean accuracy deviation values consistently falling below 50 μm. The ICam4D stereophotogrammetry system exhibited the highest precision across all conditions (P < 0.05). The maximum precision deviation for PIC system occurred in the right anterior region with an A-P distance of 20 mm and a distal implant angulation of 15° ([28.10 ± 18.73] μm), while the maximum trueness deviations for both PIC and ICam4D were observed in the anterior region with an A-P distance of 20 mm and a distal implant angulation of 25°, measuring (62.63 ±9.40) μm and (83.61 ± 1.76) μm, respectively. The PIC system showed better overall trueness than ICam4D did when distal implant angles were ≥ 15° (P < 0.05). For complete-arch implant rehabilitation, the accuracy of different impression methods varies depending on implant-related factors. The inter-implant distance and angulation were critical determinants of accuracy for intraoral scanning, whereas conventional impression techniques and the two stereophotogrammetry systems exhibited no clear correlation with these parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: