OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of a self-developed extraoral scanning system based on four-camera stereophotogrammetric technology in the acquisition of three-dimensional positional information on dental implants and conduct a comparative study involving an intraoral scanning system. METHODS: With the use of an in vitro edentulous jaw model with implants, extraoral (experimental group) and intraoral (control group) scanning systems were employed to obtain STL (Standard Tessellation Language) datasets containing three-dimensional morphological and positional information on scan bodies. In addition, a dental model scanner was used to obtain reference data. The three-dimensional morphological, linear, and angular deviations between groups and reference data were analyzed using Geomagic Wrap 2021 software to compare trueness and precision. RESULTS: The extraoral scanning system demonstrated superior trueness in three-dimensional morphological, linear, and angular deviations compared with the intraoral scanning system, with statistically significant differences (P<0.001). The extraoral scanning system also showed a higher precision in three-dimensional morphological deviation (P<0.001). As the number of implants increased, the extraoral scanning system exhibited increased three-dimensional morphological and linear deviations (P<0.001) but maintained a stable angular deviation. The intraoral scanning system displayed significant increases in three-dimensional morphological, linear, and angular deviations with the increase in the number of implants (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS The stereophotogrammetry-based extraoral scanning system outperforms intraoral scanning system in terms of the accuracy for multi-unit implant positioning and provides a novel approach for attaining a fully digital workflow for implant rehabilitation in edentulous jaws.
Jaw, Edentulous ; Humans ; Dental Impression Technique ; Dental Implants ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methods* ; Photogrammetry/methods* ; Models, Dental

Objective:To evaluate the accuracy of a self-developed extraoral scanning system based on photogrammetry technology, and to provide evidence for advancing the development and clinical application evaluation of domestically produced scanning devices.Methods:This research group developed a photogrammetry-based implant extraoral scanning system with customized scan bodies. Two distinct edentulous implant resin models were designed and three-dimensional (3D)-printed by Center of Digital Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, containing 6 (Model 1) and 8 (Model 2) abutment analogs respectively. Reference data acquisition was performed using a high-precision denture 3D scanner with scan caps mounted on the analogs. Specialized scan bodies were then mounted on the analogs for 3D positional data acquisition using both the self-developed system (experimental group) and the clinically established system (control group). Each system conducted 10 repeated scans per model. Trueness was assessed through root mean square error (RMSE), linear deviation (LD), and angular deviation (AD) relative to reference data, while precision was determined through intra-group RMSE analysis. Systematic comparisons included inter-group performance on identical models and intra-group variability across different models.Results:For Model 1, the experimental group showed statistically significant advantages over controls in intra-group RMSE [(3.10±0.71) μm vs (4.61±1.51) μm, P<0.001], reference-data RMSE [(21.48±0.60) μm vs (32.50±0.63) μm, P<0.001], linear deviation [23.64 (32.35) μm vs 44.86 (55.73) μm, P<0.001], and angular deviation [0.29° (0.29°) vs 0.23° (0.33°), P<0.001]. In Model 2, significant improvements were observed in intra-group RMSE [(4.47±1.58) μm vs (6.21±2.07) μm, P<0.001], reference-data RMSE [(38.84±0.86) μm vs (43.69±1.34) μm, P<0.001], and linear deviation [37.95 (50.68) μm vs 49.71 (58.89) μm, P<0.001]. Both groups exhibited model-dependent variability, with RMSE of precision and trueness of both groups, linear deviation of experimental group, angular deviation of control group showing statistically significant increases (all P<0.001) corresponding to abutment analog quantity. Conclusions:The self-developed scanning system demonstrates superior accuracy in 3D positional acquisition of abutment analogs compared to the contral group system, with implant number identified as a critical determinant of extraoral scanning accuracy.

Objective:To evaluate the accuracy of a self-developed extraoral scanning system based on photogrammetry technology, and to provide evidence for advancing the development and clinical application evaluation of domestically produced scanning devices.Methods:This research group developed a photogrammetry-based implant extraoral scanning system with customized scan bodies. Two distinct edentulous implant resin models were designed and three-dimensional (3D)-printed by Center of Digital Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, containing 6 (Model 1) and 8 (Model 2) abutment analogs respectively. Reference data acquisition was performed using a high-precision denture 3D scanner with scan caps mounted on the analogs. Specialized scan bodies were then mounted on the analogs for 3D positional data acquisition using both the self-developed system (experimental group) and the clinically established system (control group). Each system conducted 10 repeated scans per model. Trueness was assessed through root mean square error (RMSE), linear deviation (LD), and angular deviation (AD) relative to reference data, while precision was determined through intra-group RMSE analysis. Systematic comparisons included inter-group performance on identical models and intra-group variability across different models.Results:For Model 1, the experimental group showed statistically significant advantages over controls in intra-group RMSE [(3.10±0.71) μm vs (4.61±1.51) μm, P<0.001], reference-data RMSE [(21.48±0.60) μm vs (32.50±0.63) μm, P<0.001], linear deviation [23.64 (32.35) μm vs 44.86 (55.73) μm, P<0.001], and angular deviation [0.29° (0.29°) vs 0.23° (0.33°), P<0.001]. In Model 2, significant improvements were observed in intra-group RMSE [(4.47±1.58) μm vs (6.21±2.07) μm, P<0.001], reference-data RMSE [(38.84±0.86) μm vs (43.69±1.34) μm, P<0.001], and linear deviation [37.95 (50.68) μm vs 49.71 (58.89) μm, P<0.001]. Both groups exhibited model-dependent variability, with RMSE of precision and trueness of both groups, linear deviation of experimental group, angular deviation of control group showing statistically significant increases (all P<0.001) corresponding to abutment analog quantity. Conclusions:The self-developed scanning system demonstrates superior accuracy in 3D positional acquisition of abutment analogs compared to the contral group system, with implant number identified as a critical determinant of extraoral scanning accuracy.