Back

Optimising scan body enhances accuracy of full-arch implant scan using a smartphone video with deep learning model: An in vitro study

Lu, Y.; Yu, J.; Liu, F.; Joda, T.; Li, J.

2026-08-12 dentistry and oral medicine
10.64898/2026.08.10.26360076 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective. A deep learning (DL) model was used to convert smartphone videos of a complete arch implant cast into 3D scans. The aim of current study was to determine if a custom scan body (SB) with geometric features and coating would outperform regular PEEK stock SB in this DL scenario. The DL-derived scan outcomes were compared with those obtained from a conventional splinted open-tray impression and from photogrammetry. Materials and Methods. A maxillary edentulous model with six implants and multi-unit abutment analogs was scanned using four protocols: conventional splinted open-tray impression (CO), photogrammetry (PG; Icam4D), DL using stock SBs (DLS) and DL using custom SBs (DLC). Each protocol was repeated for 10 times. The DL scans were produced from smartphone videos with a high-fidelity, multi-view 3D construction AI model (Neuralangelo). The custom designed SB incorporated geometric features and was fabricated via 3D printing followed by a spray coating. Accuracy (trueness and precision) was assessed using three measurements: Root Mean Square (RMS), linear deviation, and angular deviation. Results. DLC outperformed DLS in both trueness and precision regarding RMS and linear measurements (p<0.001). CO and PG demonstrated the highest RMS and linear trueness, with no significant difference between them (RMS: p=0.93; linear: p=0.663). PG achieved the best precision across RMS, linear and angular measurements. Conclusion. The optimised SB significantly improves the accuracy of DL-based approach for full-arch implant scan comparing to regular PEEK stock scan bodies. While early stage, neural surface reconstruction has potential as a viable option for full-arch implant rehabilitation.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.