Comparative Accuracy of Conventional Scan Bodies, Intra-oral Photogrammetry, and Calibrated Scan Flags in Full-Arch Implant Scanning

Cairo University (CU)

Status: Not yet enrolling

Conditions: Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques

Treatments: Procedure: Intervention 2; Procedure: Intervention 1; Procedure: Intervention 3; Procedure: Control

Study type: Interventional

Funder types: Other

Identifiers

NCT07200440

Mohamed El Saharty Scan

Details and patient eligibility

About

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.

Full 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.

Enrollment: 24 estimated patients

Sex: All

Volunteers: No Healthy Volunteers

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.

Trial design

Primary purpose: Diagnostic

Allocation: Randomized

Interventional model: Parallel Assignment

Masking: Single Blind

---

24 participants in 4 patient groups

conventional scan bodies

Active Comparator group

Description:

Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with a desktop scanner.

Treatment:

Procedure: Control

scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner

Experimental group

Description:

Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner.

Treatment:

Procedure: Intervention 1

intra-oral photogrammetry

Experimental group

Description:

Digital scans using intra-oral photogrammetry scanned with an intra-oral scanner.

Treatment:

Procedure: Intervention 2

calibrated scan flags

Experimental group

Description:

Digital scans using calibrated scan flags scanned with an intra-oral scanner.

Treatment:

Procedure: Intervention 3