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

NCT07200440 | Not Yet Recruiting

• 1 other identifier: Mohamed El Saharty Scan
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 24
• Locations: 0 countries
• Sites: N/A

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.

Conditions

Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Accuracy of multiunit abutment positions

  positions and angles of the multiunit abutments

  7 days

Study Arms (4)

conventional scan bodies

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

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

Procedure: Control

scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner

EXPERIMENTAL

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

Procedure: Intervention 1

intra-oral photogrammetry

EXPERIMENTAL

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

Procedure: Intervention 2

calibrated scan flags

EXPERIMENTAL

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

Procedure: Intervention 3

Interventions

Intervention 1 PROCEDURE

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

scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner

Intervention 2 PROCEDURE

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

intra-oral photogrammetry

Intervention 3 PROCEDURE

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

calibrated scan flags

Control PROCEDURE

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

conventional scan bodies

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• 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.

You may not qualify if:

• 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.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Cairo University: lead

Related Publications (2)

• 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.

  PMID: 34893053 BACKGROUND

• 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.

  PMID: 24278919 BACKGROUND

Central Study Contacts

Mohamed Sherif El Saharty

CONTACT

01001646146; saharty@hotmail.com

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Purpose: DIAGNOSTIC
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Principal Investigator

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 20, 2025
• First Posted: October 1, 2025
• Study Start: December 20, 2025
• Primary Completion: February 20, 2026
• Study Completion: March 20, 2026
• Last Updated: October 1, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-09