Skip to content

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

Comparative Accuracy of Conventional Scan Bodies, Intra-oral Photogrammetry, and Calibrated Scan Flags in Full-Arch Implant Scanning: An In-Vitro Study

Status
Not yet recruiting
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07200440
Enrollment
24
Registered
2025-10-01
Start date
2025-12-20
Completion date
2026-03-20
Last updated
2025-10-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques

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.

Interventions

PROCEDUREIntervention 1

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

PROCEDUREIntervention 2

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

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

PROCEDUREControl

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

Sponsors

Cairo University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

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.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Accuracy of multiunit abutment positions7 dayspositions and angles of the multiunit abutments

Contacts

Primary ContactMohamed Sherif El Saharty
saharty@hotmail.com01001646146

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026