Comparative Accuracy of Conventional Scan Bodies, Intra-oral Photogrammetry, and Calibrated Scan Flags in Full-Arch Implant Scanning
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: Intervention 1, Intervention 2, Intervention 3, Control.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques. Basic parameters: No limits · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- Center list to be confirmed — check the primary protocol.
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Comparative Accuracy of Conventional Scan Bodies, Intra-oral Photogrammetry, and Calibrated Scan Flags in Full-Arch Implant Scanning: An In-Vitro Study
Overview
To assess and compare the accuracy of digital scans obtained using three different scanning protocols -conventional scan bodies, Intra-oral photogrammetry, and calibrated scan flags- on completely edentulous dental model with full-arch implants.
Detailed description
Digital scans have revolutionized prosthetic workflows by offering increased efficiency and accuracy compared to conventional techniques . Studies highlight that their accuracy depends on the scanning protocol and equipment used. Conventional scan bodies, which are well-established and commonly used for digital scans, are generally reliable; however, their accuracy can be influenced by factors such as angulation, the number of implants, and the scanning technique. Intra-oral photogrammetry has gained attention for its ability to accurately record implant positions without relying on physical scan bodies . Many systems utilize this technology to improve accuracy, particularly in complex full-arch cases, though direct comparisons with other methods remain limited. Calibrated Scan Flags represent a novel approach, incorporating enhanced features to reduce errors associated with angulation and improve the capture of implant positions. While initial studies suggest improved precision, further comparative data are required . Previous research comparing these methods often focuses on isolated factors, such as time efficiency or user preferences, with limited emphasis on accuracy. Therefore, a direct comparative analysis of these three scanning protocols is needed to address this gap.
Interventions
- Procedure Intervention 1
Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner. - Procedure Intervention 2
Digital scans using intra-oral photogrammetry scanned with an intra-oral scanner. - Procedure Intervention 3
Digital scans using calibrated scan flags scanned with an intra-oral scanner. - Procedure Control
Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with a desktop scanner.
Primary outcome measures
- Accuracy of multiunit abutment positions [Time frame: 7 days]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- Edentulous dental model simulating completely edentulous patients.
- Model containing full-arch implant analogs placed in standardized positions.
- Access to compatible scan bodies for all three scanning protocols.
Exclusion criteria
- Dental models with defects, such as fractures or irregularities, that may influence scanning accuracy.
- Implant analogs placed at non-standardized or inconsistent angles.
- Scan bodies or equipment showing signs of wear or damage that could compromise results.
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: No
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Model
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Single blind
- Primary purpose
- Diagnostic
Study locations
Center list to be confirmed — check the primary protocol.
Publications
- Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Dec 10;21(1):636. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0. PMID 34893053
- Buzayan M, Baig MR, Yunus N. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(6):1512-20. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2958. PMID 24278919
Identifiers
NCT: NCT07200440 · Mohamed El Saharty Scan