Evaluation of Photogrammetry Technique in Full-Arch Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses

Abstract

Dental implants are one of the most widely used therapies for the rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous patients. Passive fit of the implant-supported prosthesis significantly improves the long-term prognosis of these treatments. Fabricating an accurate and precise implant-supported, complete-arch prosthesis is challenging because the process involves many clinical and laboratory steps. The classic system for the manufacture of an full arch implant-fixed prosthesis supported by multiple implants consists of taking impressions with impression materials and then achieving the casting. However, in this conventional impression technique, many factors result in the inability to transfer the impression copings in accurate position or their exposure to micro-motions within the impression. Although the digital impressions taken with intraoral scanners in digital dentistry have started to find a comprehensive place in clinical practice, their reliability for full-arch implant supported dentures continues to be discussed. Photogrammetry is another new option that allows the positions of intraoral implants to be recorded in 3-dimensional via photographic images. By transferring digital impressions taken with optical markers to the CAD/CAM workflow, the error chain is shortened, and it is aimed to produce prostheses with high precision and passive fit.

Keywords

• Photogrammetry
• digital implantology
• passive fit
• CAD/CAM

Tam-Ark İmplant-Destekli Sabit Protezlerde Fotogrametri Tekniğinin Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Dental implantlar, kısmen veya tamamen dişsiz hastaların rehabilitasyonu için en yaygın kullanılan tedavilerden biridir. İmplant destekli protezin pasif şekilde oturması ise bu tedavilerin uzun vadeli prognozunu önemli ölçüde iyileştirmektedir. Doğru ve hassas, tam ark implant destekli protez üretmek zordur çünkü süreç birçok klinik ve laboratuvar adım içerir. Çoklu implant destekli tam ark sabit protezler yapmak için geleneksel yöntem, ölçü materyalleri ile ölçü almak ve kalıp elde etmekten ibarettir. Ancak, bu teknikte birçok faktör ölçü kopinglerinin doğru pozisyonda transfer edilememesine veya bunların ölçü içinde mikro hareketlere maruz kalmasına neden olur. Dijital diş hekimliğinde, ağız içi tarayıcılarla alınan dijital ölçüler, klinik pratiğinde kapsamlı bir yer bulmaya başlasa da tam-ark implant destekli protezler için güvenilirliği tartışılmaya devam etmektedir. Fotogrametri, implantların konumlarının fotografik görüntüler aracılığıyla 3 boyutlu kaydedilmesini sağlayan bir başka seçenektir. Optik belirteçlerle alınan dijital ölçülerin CAD/CAM iş akışına aktarılmasıyla hata zinciri kısaltılır, hassasiyeti yüksek ve pasif oturan protezlerin üretilmesi amaçlanır.

Keywords

• Fotogrametri
• dijital implantoloji
• pasif uyum
• CAD/CAM

References

1. 1. Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Bagán L, Giménez B, Peñarrocha M. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014;19(4):e366.
2. 2. Peñarrocha‐Oltra D, Agustín‐Panadero R, Pradíes G, Gomar‐Vercher S, Peñarrocha‐Diago M. Maxillary Full‐Arch Immediately Loaded Implant‐Supported Fixed Prosthesis Designed and Produced by Photogrammetry and Digital Printing: A Clinical Report. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(1):75-81.
3. 3. Bratos M, Bergin JM, Rubenstein JE, Sorensen JA. Effect of simulated intraoral variables on the accuracy of a photogrammetric imaging technique for complete-arch implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(2):232-241.
4. 4. Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(3):470-478.
5. 5. Gómez-Polo M, Gómez-Polo C, Del Río J, Ortega R. Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):506-510.
6. 6. Stuani VT, Ferreira R, Manfredi GGP, Cardoso M V, Sant’Ana ACP. Photogrammetry as an alternative for acquiring digital dental models: A proof of concept. Med Hypotheses. 2019;128:43-49.
7. 7. Rivara F, Lumetti S, Calciolari E, Toffoli A, Forlani G, Manfredi E. Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):703-711.
8. 8. Agustín-Panadero R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Gomar-Vercher S, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Stereophotogrammetry for Recording the Position of Multiple Implants: Technical Description. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(6).

9. 9. Azevedo L, Molinero-Mourelle P, Antonaya-Martín JL, del Río-Highsmith J, Correia A, Gómez-Polo M. Photogrammetry Technique for the 3D Digital Impression of Multiple Dental Implants. In: Tavares JMRS, Natal Jorge RM, eds. VipIMAGE 2019. Springer International Publishing; 2019:615-619.
10. 10. Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant‐supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Analysis of precision of fit between cast gold‐alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three‐dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6(3):172-180.
11. 11. Jemt T, Bäck T, Petersson A. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study. Int J Prosthodont. 1999;12(4).
12. 12. Lie A, Jemt T. Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994;5(1):30-36.
13. 13. Pradíes G, Ferreiroa A, Özcan M, Giménez B, Martínez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(4):338-344.
14. 14. Peñarrocha-Diago M, Balaguer-Martí JC, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martínez JF, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Agustín-Panadero R. A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: A randomized controlled pilot clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(5):596-603.
15. 15. Bergin JM, Rubenstein JE, Mancl L, Brudvik JS, Raigrodski AJ. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(4):243-251.
16. 16. Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: From data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):749-754.
17. 17. Sallorenzo A, Gómez-Polo M. Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. Published online 2021.
18. 18. Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three‐Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(2):163-170.
19. 19. Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implant. 2017;10(Suppl 1):101-120.
20. 20. Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent. 2015;24(5):498-504.
21. 21. Marghalani A, Weber H-P, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):574-579.
22. 22. Eliasson A, Örtorp A. The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:e30-e38.,
23. 23. Torres MÁF, Estela SA, Raya MA, Diago MP. CAD/CAM dental systems in implant dentistry: Update. Med oral, Patol oral y cirugía bucal Ed inglesa. 2009;14(3):8.
24. 24. Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant‐supported complete‐arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part—An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(12):1250-1258.
25. 25. Holst S, Persson A, Wichmann M, Karl M. Digitizing implant position locators on master casts: comparison of a noncontact scanner and a contact-probe scanner. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1).
26. 26. Sánchez-Monescillo A, Hernanz-Martín J, González-Serrano C, González-Serrano J, Duarte Jr S. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique. Quintessence Int (Berl). 2019;50(4):288-293.
27. 27. Al-Turki LEE, Chai J, Lautenschlager EP, Hutten MC. Changes in prosthetic screw stability because of misfit of implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(1).
28. 28. Papaspyridakos P, Chen C-J, Chuang S-K, Weber H-P, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1).
29. 29. Oyagüe RC, Sánchez-Jorge MI, Turrión AS. Evaluation of fit of zirconia posterior bridge structures constructed with different scanning methods and preparation angles. Odontology. 2010;98(2):170-172.
30. 30. Imetric4D. (iCam 4D The Revolution of Implantology). https://www.imetric4d.com/products/icam-4d/