⌘+K

Pulse Explore Clubs Researchers Journals

Home Clubs Explore

November 28, 2025Journal of DentistryOpen Access

Trueness of extraoral photogrammetry, intraoral photogrammetry and direct intraoral scanning in the full-arch digital implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

Francesco Mangano Henriette Lerner German F. Valle Francesco Biaggini Carlo Mangano A.M. Dybov

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Abstract

Next-generation IOSs, particularly iTero Lumina™, may approach the trueness of photogrammetric systems, although photogrammetry-especially EPG-remains the most accurate option for digital full-arch implant acquisition.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Mangano et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69402df12d562116f29040ca https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106269

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Keep reading

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

1Intraoral, Extraoral, and Navigation Photogrammetry Trueness for Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Comparative StudyOriginal Research · 2026 · 3 citations
2Trueness of Implant Positioning Using Intraoral Scanning and Dental Photogrammetry for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Study2025 · 1 citations
3Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry2024 · 83 citations
4Evaluation of four digital methods in capturing complete‐arch implant positions: Direct scanning, splinted scan bodies, three‐dimensional‐printed scan aids, and intraoral photogrammetryOriginal Research · 2026
5Accuracy of complete‐arch implant positions recorded by analog impressions, intraoral scanning, and extraoral and intraoral photogrammetryOriginal Research · 2026