Photogrammetric Systems Outperform Traditional and Intraoral Methods in Impression Accuracy in full-arch dental implant rehabilitation: Study

The differences in trueness and precision among the three groups were analyzed using reverse engineering software, focusing on three-dimensional (3D) linearity, angularity, and root mean square (RMS) deviations. Results: For trueness, median deviations (μm) for CON, IOS, PG-1, and PG-2 were 66.05, 78.58, 25.23, and 28.15, with angle deviations of 0.35°, 0.52°, 0.12°, and 0.14°, and RMS deviations (μm) of 40.50, 91.75, 10.87, and 13.35, respectively. Significant differences in X, Y-axis, 3D linearity, angularity, and RMS deviations among groups (p < 0.01). For precision, linear deviations (μm) were 39.32, 45.33, 15.80, and 17.78, with angle deviations of 0.24°, 0.38°, 0.10°, and 0.13°, and RMS deviations (μm) of 36.55, 82.8, 3.7, and 4.6, respectively. Significant differences in X, Y-axis, 3D linearity, XZ-plane, and RMS deviations among groups (p < 0.05).

The Icam4D and PIC photogrammetric impression systems exhibited the highest levels of accuracy, followed by conventional impression techniques, whereas intraoral scanning techniques demonstrated the least accuracy.

Reference:

Abuduwaili, K., Huang, R., Song, J. et al. Comparison of photogrammetric imaging, intraoral scanning and conventional impression accuracy of full-arch dental implant rehabilitation: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 25, 753 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-06029-8