I'm a newbie compared to you, but maybe I can contribute something... The fact that scanning is more accurate when the scan bodies to be scanned are close and parallel to each other is that the spatial distortion xyz caused by the camera lens used is smaller. The fact of using a wide angle lens and the entire result that occurs in machine vision is partially corrected by the calibration of the scanner. However, there is always a minimum error in the point fusion resulting from each scanned area whether texture or color fusion, ICP or target fusion is used. When the software merges everything and makes the STL or OBJ file the resulting error from right to left or from front to back are all added together. Therefore, I believe that photogrammetry works better in these cases. I agree with you, the more implants, the better. In fact, I have preferred to use the same methodology that I do in fixed prosthetics on teeth, dividing an entire arch into some individualized segments.
A very comfortable option with guided surgery is to use a second surgical guide as an index without titanium cylinders to transfer the position of the implants as soon as the surgery is complete, even more so if a flapless approach is used. And yes, I'm a lazy doc too. God bless you doc! Hugs from Brazil!
Do you think you could take 10 seperate scans on the same pt, moving the scan bodies around inbetween each scan, and you could replicate 10 perfect copy scans using your method, to the micron? I’m researching this topic and doing lots of R&D with an implant company and would love your input.
Absolutely. Holding all other variables constant you could absolutely do that. That would include things like scan protocol, properly calibrated scanner, scan body design, scanning efficiency, arch topography etc. If the scan bodies had different geometries I think your results would start to diminish.
Respectfully disagree . Been digital scanning for 14 years . As soon as you introduce more than 3 dental implants , passivity is nearly impossible off a digital scan . Photogrammetry is the gold standard
Respect your opinion but just get photogrammetry then you can graduate from all this. You stop trying to become equal with photogrammetry and focus more on workflows and predictably.
But he doesn’t need it to get the same result in as little time. It’s like asking an endodontist to get a microscope when they are already finding mb2s 99% of the time without one.
@@smoothbanana I would rather be at 100%. Photogrammetry is the gold standard. Everything else is just a compromise. It’s also difficult to determine if you are getting 100% passive fits with a scanner. It might go down and torque but be ever so slightly off.
@@Stanleyinstitute you can not compare finding a mb2 to the pasivity of a full arch bar , that is just stupid, i am a root canal specialist and also a prosto specialist for 14 years , and comparing both is just dumb also thinking someone would buy a microscope to find a mb2 also makes the coment extremely a general dentist coment
Doc. I’m really glad you are getting great results with your protocol. I’m just having a hard time seeing how having more implants than 4 will get them all in the same frame ? With guided , 200 microns off times 5 or 6 implants ends up being far off for a totally prefab provisional. Now I can see where it would be easy to drill out the provisional , place the cylinders , and then pick them up with this method . I will say After doing hundreds of arches analog I recently bought a micron mapper / sprint ray pro 2 and haven’t looked back !!
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm a newbie compared to you, but maybe I can contribute something... The fact that scanning is more accurate when the scan bodies to be scanned are close and parallel to each other is that the spatial distortion xyz caused by the camera lens used is smaller. The fact of using a wide angle lens and the entire result that occurs in machine vision is partially corrected by the calibration of the scanner. However, there is always a minimum error in the point fusion resulting from each scanned area whether texture or color fusion, ICP or target fusion is used. When the software merges everything and makes the STL or OBJ file the resulting error from right to left or from front to back are all added together. Therefore, I believe that photogrammetry works better in these cases. I agree with you, the more implants, the better. In fact, I have preferred to use the same methodology that I do in fixed prosthetics on teeth, dividing an entire arch into some individualized segments.
A very comfortable option with guided surgery is to use a second surgical guide as an index without titanium cylinders to transfer the position of the implants as soon as the surgery is complete, even more so if a flapless approach is used. And yes, I'm a lazy doc too. God bless you doc! Hugs from Brazil!
Your logic is sound. What i have found is the photogrammetry is not necessary. But, it is absolutely a viable treatment method.
Do you think you could take 10 seperate scans on the same pt, moving the scan bodies around inbetween each scan, and you could replicate 10 perfect copy scans using your method, to the micron?
I’m researching this topic and doing lots of R&D with an implant company and would love your input.
Absolutely. Holding all other variables constant you could absolutely do that. That would include things like scan protocol, properly calibrated scanner, scan body design, scanning efficiency, arch topography etc. If the scan bodies had different geometries I think your results would start to diminish.
Can you do a video on the limitations of types of cases you can do guided? As far as atrophic arches, extramaxillary options, etc.
That is an excellent suggestion. I will do that. Thank you.
Respectfully disagree . Been digital scanning for 14 years . As soon as you introduce more than 3 dental implants , passivity is nearly impossible off a digital scan . Photogrammetry is the gold standard
Respect your opinion but just get photogrammetry then you can graduate from all this. You stop trying to become equal with photogrammetry and focus more on workflows and predictably.
But he doesn’t need it to get the same result in as little time. It’s like asking an endodontist to get a microscope when they are already finding mb2s 99% of the time without one.
Exactly this!
@@smoothbanana I would rather be at 100%. Photogrammetry is the gold standard. Everything else is just a compromise. It’s also difficult to determine if you are getting 100% passive fits with a scanner. It might go down and torque but be ever so slightly off.
@@Stanleyinstitute you can not compare finding a mb2 to the pasivity of a full arch bar , that is just stupid, i am a root canal specialist and also a prosto specialist for 14 years , and comparing both is just dumb also thinking someone would buy a microscope to find a mb2 also makes the coment extremely a general dentist coment
Doc. I’m really glad you are getting great results with your protocol. I’m just having a hard time seeing how having more implants than 4 will get them all in the same frame ? With guided , 200 microns off times 5 or 6 implants ends up being far off for a totally prefab provisional. Now I can see where it would be easy to drill out the provisional , place the cylinders , and then pick them up with this method .
I will say After doing hundreds of arches analog I recently bought a micron mapper / sprint ray pro 2 and haven’t looked back !!
Can't argue with that.
the truth doesn't lie.
Stop being a hater!!