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

NCT ID: NCT07200440

Last Updated: 2025-10-01

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
• Clinical Phase: NA
• Total Enrollment: 24 participants
• Study Classification: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2025-12-20
• Study Completion Date: 2026-03-20

Brief Summary

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.

Detailed 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.

Conditions

Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques

Study Design

• Allocation Method: RANDOMIZED
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Primary Study Purpose: DIAGNOSTIC
• Blinding Strategy: SINGLE

Study Groups

conventional scan bodies

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

Group Type: ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Control

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

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

scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner

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

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Intervention 1

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

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

intra-oral photogrammetry

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

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Intervention 2

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

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

calibrated scan flags

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

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Intervention 3

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

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

Interventions

Intervention 1

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

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

Intervention 2

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

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

Intervention 3

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

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

Control

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

Intervention Type: PROCEDURE

Eligibility Criteria

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.

• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No

Sponsors

Cairo University

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Mohamed El Saharty

Principal Investigator

Responsibility Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Central Contacts

Mohamed Sherif El Saharty

Role: CONTACT

saharty@hotmail.com

01001646146 ext. 002

References

Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Dec 10;21(1):636. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-02005-0.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 34893053 (View on PubMed)

Buzayan M, Baig MR, Yunus N. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Nov-Dec;28(6):1512-20. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2958.

Reference Type: BACKGROUND

PMID: 24278919 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Mohamed El Saharty Scan

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id