Journal of Prosthodontics News
November 4, 2026
Accuracy of Complete-Arch Implant Impressions Obtained with Intraoral Scanning Protocols, Extraoral and Intraoral Photogrammetry, and Conventional Techniques
Now online in the Journal of Prosthodontics, an in vitro study of the accuracy of different impression protocols co-authored by ACP members, Jiayi Lu DDS, MS, Berna Saglik DDS, MS, FACP, D.ABDSM, Fei Liu DDS, PhD, FACP, and Junying Li DDS, MS, PhD.
This study compared the accuracy of five techniques for complete-arch implant impressions: conventional open-tray splinted impression technique (CNV), direct intraoral scanning (IOS), calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP), extraoral photogrammetry (EPG), and intraoral photogrammetry (IPG).
A maxillary edentulous model with six implants was used. Scan bodies were connected at the abutment level, and desktop scanning (DSK) data served as the reference dataset. The five impression techniques (CNV, IOS, CISP, EPG, IPG) were performed 10 times each. STL datasets were then aligned using two strategies: alignment of all scan bodies to evaluate overall fitness and alignment of the first and second scan bodies to simulate a virtual Sheffield fit test.
The results showed that under overall alignment, EPG demonstrated the highest trueness and precision among the evaluated techniques. IPG also showed high overall accuracy, but both photogrammetry-based techniques exhibited progressively greater distal deviations under constrained alignment conditions. The CISP improved the accuracy of conventional IOS and showed performance comparable with or superior to the conventional open-tray splinted impression technique in terms of linear deviation and RMS error. When framework fit was evaluated by a virtual Sheffield test, the CISP and conventional impressions provided more stable distal accuracy than photogrammetry-based techniques.
Lu J, Yu J, Adi A, Saglik B, Liu F, Li J. Accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions obtained with intraoral scanning, calibrated intraoral scan protocol, extraoral and intraoral photogrammetry, and conventional impression techniques: An in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2026; 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70256
Previous
Next
Back to News