Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study

New day, new encouraging PIC system results from a scientific publication! This study is a fantastic work by Dr. Tohme and his collaborators that once again verifies the PIC system’s performance. It was published in the June 2021 number of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.

The results are jaw-dropping. The study concludes that the PIC system has the lowest scan body 3D discrepancy and global angular deviation in terms of trueness and precision when compared to a conventional impression (impression plaster) and an intraoral scanner. 

The precision root-mean-square 3D deviation of whole scan body of the PIC system is so low (0.002 ±0.001) that it’s almost within the margin of error (Tohme et al, 2021). The resulting precision graph is so inspiring to look at that it will be hanging in our office for a while.

The root mean square 3D deviation of the PIC system is so small it’s barely visible on the graph.

These results are even more significant for the PIC system in the context of the study’s in vitro design that benefits the accuracy of the other methods used in the comparison. 

In vitro studies omit the clinical conditions of an actual chairside patient impression. Real-world factors such as the operator's skill, the number and position of implants, ambient temperature, mucosa and tongue mobility and others can decrease the precision of a conventional or intraoral scanner impression but have no effect on the consistent clinical results of the PIC system.

Even in these close to ideal conditions that level the field the PIC system stayed far ahead as the most accurate solution. Other recent in vitro scientific studies also confirm these results with the PIC system registering the lowest margin of error and deviation, as low as just 10 µm (Sallorenzo & Gómez-Polo, 2021). 

This study adds to the robust body of scientific evidence proving the accuracy of the PIC system. Together with this publication, the first half of 2021 alone has already brought us three (!) different studies that all independently validate the guaranteed passive fit of the PIC system and continue to support our solution as the most precise implants oral scanner for full arch impressions. 

SOURCES

• Tohme, H., Lawand, G., Chmielewska, M., & Makhzoume, J. (2021). Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006

• Sallorenzo, A., & Gómez-Polo, M. (2021). Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.032