Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40338525›Full record

ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025

Intra Oral Photogrammetry: Trueness Evaluation of Novel Technology for Implant Complete-Arch Digital Impression In Vitro.

Alessandro Pozzi, Andrea Laureti, Isaac Tawil, James Chow, Luis Azevedo, Vincent Fehmer, Irena Sailer

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alessandro PozziDepartment of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3052-8186
Andrea LauretiDepartment of Chemical Science and Technologies, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Isaac TawilPrivate Practice, New York, New York, USA.
James ChowBrånemark Osseointegration Centre, Hong Kong SAR-China, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China.
Luis AzevedoDivision of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9984-653X
Vincent FehmerDivision of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Irena SailerDivision of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the trueness of intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) technology for complete-arch implant digital impression and evaluate the effect of implant number. MATERIAL AND

methodsAll data were fully anonymized in compliance with ethical standards, and a total of 30 complete-arch patient models with 4 (n = 13), 5 (n = 9), or 6 (n = 8) implants were selected from the archive. Digital impressions were taken with IPG and a desktop scanner. Test and reference standard tessellation language (STL) files were superimposed using a best-fit algorithm. For each implant position, mean linear (ΔX, ΔY, ΔZ axes) and angular deviations (ΔANGLE) and three-dimensional (3D) Euclidean distances (ΔEUC) were measured as primary outcomes with a dedicated software program (Hyper Cad S, Cam HyperMill, Open Mind Technologies) and reported as descriptive statistics. Secondary aim was to determine using linear mixed models whether implant number affected trueness. All statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 18 (Stata Corp, College Station) and significance was set at 0.05.

resultsA total of 30 definitive casts with 4 (n = 13), 5 (n = 8), and 6 (n = 9) multi-unit abutment (MUA) analogs were analyzed (n = 146 implant positions). The mean deviations along the X-axis were -3.97 ± 32.8 μm, while along the Y-axis, they were -1.97 ± 25.03 μm. For the Z-axis, a greater deviation of -33 ± 34.77 μm was observed. The 3D Euclidean distance deviation measured 57.22 ± 27.41 μm, and the angular deviation was 0.26° ± 0.19°. Statistically significant deviations were experienced for ΔZ, ΔEUC, and ΔANGLE (p < 0.01). Additionally, the number of implants had a statistically significant effect only on the Z-axis deviation (p = 0.03).

conclusionsWithin study limitations, IPG technology was feasible for complete-arch digital implant impression with mean linear, angular, and 3D deviations far below the acceptable range for a passive fit. Reported IPG trueness might avoid a rigid prototype try-in. The implant number had no influence on trueness except for Z-axis deviations. Integrating photogrammetry with intraoral optical scanning (IOS) improved practicality, optimizing the digital workflow. Further clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsDental Impression TechniquePhotogrammetryComputer-Aided DesignHumansIn Vitro TechniquesModels, DentalDental Implantsdental implantdigital impressionintraoral photogrammetryIOSphotogrammetrycomplete‐arch

Identifiers

PMID40338525
PMCPMC12058441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.