Photogrammetry and Conventional Impressions for Recording Implant Positions: A Comparative Laboratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of digitized techniques for manufacturing implant frameworks has made possible alternative "impression" techniques for recording implant positions. PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to test the precision and accuracy of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique to record implant positions in vitro and to compare casts made with this technique with conventional casts fabricated with two conventional impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty casts were fabricated from 10 polyether (Impregum, ESPE Dental AG, Seefeld, Germany) impressions and 10 plaster (Kühns Abdrucksgips, Ernst Hirnischs GmbH, Goslar, Germany) impressions of one master model. The casts were measured in a coordinate measuring machine (Zeiss Prismo VAST, Oberkochen, Germany) and compared with the master model. Six separate three-dimensional photographs of the master model were taken with a special camera. After the photographs were measured with an analytic plotter, results were analyzed and compared to the coordinates of the original model and casts. RESULTS: A systematic pattern of distortion in the x-axis was found for the two impression techniques. Expansion of the implant arch at the terminal implants (p < .01) averaged 22 microm and 94 microm on photographs and plaster casts, respectively. Polyether casts contracted an average of 52 microm when compared with the master (p < .01). In absolute figures, photogrammetry and the polyether technique reproduced the x-axis and three-dimensional parameters more accurately than the plaster technique did when cylinder center point distortion was compared (p < .05 to p < .001). However, angular cylinder distortion in absolute figures was greater with the photographic technique than with either of the impression techniques (p < .05-p < .001). CONCLUSION: Photogrammetry is a valid option for recording implant positions and has a precision comparable to that of conventional impression techniques. At present, however, it is limited to framework fabrication techniques that are based on digital platforms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".