(1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student’s t-test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.

To compare the accuracy of complete arch implant capture using two extraoral photogrammetry (PG) systems (PIC system® and PIC app®). An edentulous cast with six multiunit abutment (MUA) analogs was digitised and 30 complete arch implant captures were performed by each PG system. Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the digitised reference model with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) and were used to compare the discrepancies with the same measurements obtained using the PG devices. The Mann-Withney U test was used to analyse the trueness data, and the Levene test was used to analyse the precision values (α=0.05). The mean ± standard deviation results for the distance and angulation measurements obtained using the PIC system and PIC app, respectively (18.21 ± 12.21 μm and 0.10 ± 0.07 degrees, and 30.92 ± 20.88 μm and 0.16 ± 0.09 degrees, respectively). The mean differences between the PIC app® and PIC system® were 12.70 μm (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 10.47, 14.94; p < 0.001) and 0.07 degrees (95 % CI: 0.05, 0.07; p < 0.001) for the Euclidean linear and angular measurements, respectively. The PIC system® demonstrated a greater precision (lower variance, p = 0.035) for linear measurements; however, both extraoral PG systems exhibited similar precision (equal variances) for angular measurements (p = 0.112). PIC system® exhibited greater trueness for linear and angular measurements and linear precision. However, the impact of these statistically significant differences may not be clinically relevant. The PIC system® has been reported as an accurate PG method for recording the three-dimensional implant positions in complete arch prostheses; however, high equipment costs limit its widespread adoption. With the PIC app®, smartphones provide the democratisation of the PIC system® using an accurate and cost-effective approach.

Stereophotogrammetry has been proposed as an alternative to intraoral scanners for recording the location of multiple dental implants. Most studies evaluating its accuracy have been in vitro, and clinical studies are lacking. The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the precision of a stereophotogrammetry system for complete arch prostheses supported by 6 implants. A total of 10 participants with a completely edentulous maxilla with 6 multiunit implant abutments were recruited. For each participant, 5 recordings were made using a stereophotogrammetry device (PIC system; PIC dental). From the resulting standard tessellation language (STL) files, linear and angular Euclidean distances were recorded. A statistical analysis of the measurements obtained was used to determine their repeatability and to identify maximum discrepancy values. A comparative analysis of the standard deviation values was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Sidak statistical tests. (α=.05). For linear distances, the mean ±standard deviation precision was 14.71 ±12.2 µm, with a maximum discrepancy of 61 µm. For the angular measurements, the mean ±standard deviation precision was 0.072 ±0.064 degrees, with a maximum discrepancy of 0.345 degrees. Statistically significant differences (P<.05) were found among the different implant spans. The results suggested that the stereophotogrammetry device was sufficiently precise for recording implant locations in complete arch prostheses supported by 6 implant abutments.

A photogrammetry algorithm integrated into a smartphone application has been proposed as an alternative to photogrammetry scanners for complete arch digital implant recording. Clinical studies, however, are lacking. The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the accuracy of a photogrammetry app for complete arch prostheses supported by 6 implants. A total of 8 participants with 10 completely edentulous arches with 6 multiunit implant abutments were recruited. For each participant, 5 recordings were made using a photogrammetry app (PIC app; Pic dental), and 1 recording with a photogrammetry device (PIC system; PIC dental). From the resulting standard tessellation language (STL) files, linear and angular Euclidean distances were recorded. A statistical analysis of the measurements obtained was used to determine their trueness and precision. The Shapiro-Wilk tests were run to analyse the trueness data, and the Levene test was used to assess the precision values (α=.05). The mean ±standard deviation absolute difference between the PIC system and PIC app was 21 ±16 µm and 0.20 ±0.17 degrees. The interimplant distance did not signifficantly affect linear trueness (P>.05) or angular trueness (P>.05). The arch type did affect linear trueness P<.001, but did not affect angular truness (P=.310). The results suggested that the photogrammetry app was sufficiently accurate for recording implant locations in complete arch prostheses supported by 6 implant abutments.

(1) Gingival inflammation is an ongoing challenge in tooth-supported fixed restorations, especially when the prosthetic margin does not consider the supracrestal tissues of patients. This case report aimed to present the case of a patient who was periodontally compromised due to a previous invasion of the supracrestal tissue attachment with fixed restorations and evaluate the healing response of periodontal tissues to a vertical edgeless preparation technique: bleeding upon probing (BOP), periodontal probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). (2) After tooth preparation, the new restorations were adapted, this time without invading the supracrestal space of the patient, and CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated. (3) Optimal maturation of the soft tissue was observed, achieving correction of the marginal contour of periodontal tissues and improvement of periodontal indexes. (4) It can be concluded that the BOPT technique combined with a full digital workflow is a valid option for the correction and remodeling of gingival architecture.

Benabdallah-M’RabatMeriem, et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2025 Oct;17(5):292-303. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2025.17.5.292