ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2025
Influence of camera position, implant angulation and implant reference on the accuracy of complete arch implant recordings with photogrammetry.
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In Vivo Complete Arch Implant Impressions: Comparison of the Linear Precision of Digital and Conventional Techniques.International dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the present study was to assess the influence of various implant angulations, camera positions and number of implant references on the accuracy of a photogrammetry device for complete arch implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND
methods2 edentulous models, one with 6 parallel implants (PM) and other with 6 angled implants (AM), underwent digitalization with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) to establish a reference standard. Both models underwent 20 impressions with 2 different camera positions and 3 different implant references, with a total of 240 impressions. Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the reference cast and each experimental scan and compared. Absolute (n) and relative frequencies (%) of true and precise measurements at 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Chi-squared tests were used to assess differences in trueness and precision between these factors.
results3660 distances and 1440 angles were analyzed for trueness. The absolute difference was 54 ± 46 µm and 0.341 ± 0.301°. Precision was 18 ± 23 µm from 68400 measured distances and 0.048 ± 0.074° for the 22800 angulations measured. Statistically significant differences (
conclusionImplant angulations, camera positions and number of implant references used affected the precision and trueness of Precise Implant Capture (PIC) system. However, these differences did not show clinically relevant values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.