Meriem Benabdallah-M'Rabat, Andrea Santamaria-Laorden, Sabina Francesca Bertuol-Gessi, Alicia Martínez-Marugán, Ana Suarez-García, Israel John Thuissard, Jaime Orejas-Pérez
{"title":"Influence of camera position, implant angulation and implant reference on the accuracy of complete arch implant recordings with photogrammetry.","authors":"Meriem Benabdallah-M'Rabat, Andrea Santamaria-Laorden, Sabina Francesca Bertuol-Gessi, Alicia Martínez-Marugán, Ana Suarez-García, Israel John Thuissard, Jaime Orejas-Pérez","doi":"10.4047/jap.2025.17.5.292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>2 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3660 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 (<i>P</i> < .05) were identified between PM and Am, A1 and A2 and number of references in both distances and angulations for trueness and precision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Implant 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","volume":"17 5","pages":"292-303"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12575067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2025.17.5.292","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The 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 methods: 2 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.
Results: 3660 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 (P < .05) were identified between PM and Am, A1 and A2 and number of references in both distances and angulations for trueness and precision.
Conclusion: Implant 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.
期刊介绍:
This journal aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in the field of prosthodontics and its related areas to many dental communities concerned with esthetic and functional restorations, occlusion, implants, prostheses, and biomaterials related to prosthodontics.
This journal publishes
• Original research data of high scientific merit in the field of diagnosis, function, esthetics and stomatognathic physiology related to prosthodontic rehabilitation, physiology and mechanics of occlusion, mechanical and biologic aspects of prosthodontic materials including dental implants.
• Review articles by experts on controversies and new developments in prosthodontics.
• Case reports if they provide or document new fundamental knowledge.