Accuracy of Different Scanning TechniquesNCT07200440
Comparative Accuracy of Conventional Scan Bodies, Intra-oral Photogrammetry, and Calibrated Scan Flags in Full-Arch Implant Scanning
A study testing Intervention 1, Intervention 2 and Intervention 3 in people with Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques, run by Cairo University.
Trial 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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any age
- Conditions the study is for
- Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques
- What is being tested?
- Intervention 1, Intervention 2 and Intervention 3
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 24 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 20 Dec 2025to 20 Mar 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 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.
Who cannot join
- 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.
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
About this study
Official title: Comparative Accuracy of Conventional Scan Bodies, Intra-oral Photogrammetry, and Calibrated Scan Flags in Full-Arch Implant Scanning: An In-Vitro Study
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.
Read the detailed description
Digital scans have revolutionized prosthetic workflows by offering increased efficiency and accuracy compared to conventional techniques . Studies highlight that their accuracy depends on the scanning protocol and equipment used. Conventional scan bodies, which are well-established and commonly used for digital scans, are generally reliable; however, their accuracy can be influenced by factors such as angulation, the number of implants, and the scanning technique. Intra-oral photogrammetry has gained attention for its ability to accurately record implant positions without relying on physical scan bodies . Many systems utilize this technology to improve accuracy, particularly in complex full-arch cases, though direct comparisons with other methods remain limited. Calibrated Scan Flags represent a novel approach, incorporating enhanced features to reduce errors associated with angulation and improve the capture of implant positions. While initial studies suggest improved precision, further comparative data are required . Previous research comparing these methods often focuses on isolated factors, such as time efficiency or user preferences, with limited emphasis on accuracy. Therefore, a direct comparative analysis of these three scanning protocols is needed to address this gap.
- Being tested
- Intervention 1, Intervention 2, Intervention 3, Control
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Intervention 1Procedure or surgery
Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner.
Intervention 2Procedure or surgery
Digital scans using intra-oral photogrammetry scanned with an intra-oral scanner.
Intervention 3Procedure or surgery
Digital scans using calibrated scan flags scanned with an intra-oral scanner.
ControlProcedure or surgery
Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with a desktop scanner.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| conventional scan bodies | Active comparator | Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with a desktop scanner. Receives: Procedure: Control |
| scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner | Experimental | Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner. Receives: Procedure: Intervention 1 |
| intra-oral photogrammetry | Experimental | Digital scans using intra-oral photogrammetry scanned with an intra-oral scanner. Receives: Procedure: Intervention 2 |
| calibrated scan flags | Experimental | Digital scans using calibrated scan flags scanned with an intra-oral scanner. Receives: Procedure: Intervention 3 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Accuracy of multiunit abutment positions
positions and angles of the multiunit abutments
Measured: 7 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 Oct 2025
- Study start20 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion20 Feb 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion20 Mar 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Accuracy of Different Scanning TechniquesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Cairo UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mohamed El Saharty, Cairo University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07200440
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Mohamed El Saharty Scan
- Status last verified
- Sep 2025
- First submitted
- 20 Feb 2025
- Last updated
- 1 Oct 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: Will be decided after getting the results
Publications
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.
PubMed 34893053Buzayan 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.
PubMed 24278919
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 1 Oct 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Comparative Accuracy of Conventional Scan Bodies, Intra-oral Photogrammetry, and Calibrated Scan Flags in Full-Arch Implant Scanning: An In-Vitro Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07200440
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Mohamed El Saharty Scan
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Not yet recruiting
- Enrolment
- 24 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Cairo UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 20 Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 20 Feb 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 20 Mar 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 1 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
Digital scans have revolutionized prosthetic workflows by offering increased efficiency and accuracy compared to conventional techniques . Studies highlight that their accuracy depends on the scanning protocol and equipment used. Conventional scan bodies, which are well-established and commonly used for digital scans, are generally reliable; however, their accuracy can be influenced by factors such as angulation, the number of implants, and the scanning technique. Intra-oral photogrammetry has gained attention for its ability to accurately record implant positions without relying on physical scan bodies . Many systems utilize this technology to improve accuracy, particularly in complex full-arch cases, though direct comparisons with other methods remain limited. Calibrated Scan Flags represent a novel approach, incorporating enhanced features to reduce errors associated with angulation and improve the capture of implant positions. While initial studies suggest improved precision, further comparative data are required . Previous research comparing these methods often focuses on isolated factors, such as time efficiency or user preferences, with limited emphasis on accuracy. Therefore, a direct comparative analysis of these three scanning protocols is needed to address this gap.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| conventional scan bodies | Active comparator | Procedure: ControlDigital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with a desktop scanner. |
| scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner | Experimental | Procedure: Intervention 1Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner. |
| intra-oral photogrammetry | Experimental | Procedure: Intervention 2Digital scans using intra-oral photogrammetry scanned with an intra-oral scanner. |
| calibrated scan flags | Experimental | Procedure: Intervention 3Digital scans using calibrated scan flags scanned with an intra-oral scanner. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention 1Digital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner. | Procedure or surgery | scan bodies scanned with an intra-oral scanner |
| Intervention 2Digital scans using intra-oral photogrammetry scanned with an intra-oral scanner. | Procedure or surgery | intra-oral photogrammetry |
| Intervention 3Digital scans using calibrated scan flags scanned with an intra-oral scanner. | Procedure or surgery | calibrated scan flags |
| ControlDigital scans using conventional scan bodies scanned with a desktop scanner. | Procedure or surgery | conventional scan bodies |
Primary outcome
Accuracy of multiunit abutment positions
Time frame: 7 days
positions and angles of the multiunit abutments
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 1 Oct 2025.
- Results publication: PubMed 34893053Ma 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.
- Results publication: PubMed 24278919Buzayan 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. Will be decided after getting the results
Related trials for Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques
Recruiting
Effect of Scanning Techniques on Accuracy of Mandibular Fixed Detachable Prostheses
Full Arch Implant Rehabilitation
Not yet recruiting
A Comparison of Accuracy Between Different Facial Scanning Techniques
Facial Neoplasms
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Intervention 1, Intervention 2 and Intervention 3 in people with Accuracy of Different Scanning Techniques, run by Cairo University.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: opening soon, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Oct 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Mohamed Sherif El Saharty (01001646146 ext. 002, saharty@hotmail.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Accuracy of multiunit abutment positions (time frame: 7 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07200440, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Oct 2025.