ANALYSIS OF REPORTS PROVIDED BY RESEARCH COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FIXED PROSTHODONTICS ON THE ACCURACY OF DIFFERENT DIGITAL IMPRESSION APPROACHES FOR FULL-ARCH IMPLANT-SUPPORTED PROSTHETIC REHABILITATION AND PROPOSALS OF EVOLUTIONARY AND MATHE

Abstract

Purpose of the study. To analyze the reports of the Research Committee of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics concerning the accuracy of different approaches to digital impression acquisition for full- arch implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitation, and to systematize and compare their findings with consideration of the extent of the available evidence for the evaluated techniques and the clinical relevance of the reported outcomes. Research methods. Study was conducted as an analytical review incorporating elements of comparative evaluation of the available evidence regarding the accuracy of digital techniques used to register dental implant positions in patients undergoing rehabilitation under conditions of complete edentulism. The analysis included four systematic reviews published by the Research Committee of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics between 2025 and 2026. These reviews evaluated the accuracy of different digital impression approaches used to register the spatial positions of dental implants in patients requiring full-arch rehabilitation. Scientific novelty. Comparative analysis of all four systematic reviews enabled the establishment of a clear hierarchy of contemporary digital protocols according to their level of accuracy. The highest accuracy was demonstrated by extraoral photogrammetry systems, with linear discrepancies approximating 27 µm and angular discrepancies approximating 0.21°. Comparable outcomes were reported for intraoral photogrammetry systems and other calibrated implant scan-body systems, for which mean linear discrepancies ranged from 30 to 50 µm. Under favorable conditions, noncalibrated splinting devices and systems incorporating additional reference geometry were capable of achieving accuracy values within the range of 26-58 µm. Conventional protocols using nonsplinted implant scan bodies remained the least predictable and demonstrated the greatest variability in reported outcomes. Conclusions. Analysis of the four selected systematic reviews published by the Research Committee of the American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics and focused on the accuracy of different digital impression approaches for registering dental implant positions under conditions of complete edentulism demonstrated that digital impression accuracy is determined not only by the technical characteristics of the intraoral scanner itself, but primarily by the mathematical principle used to generate the digital model and by the availability of additional geometric reference features. Conventional protocols involving nonsplinted implant scan bodies remain the most dependent on the sequential image stitching of local scan frames. Consequently, these protocols are characterized by the greatest variability in outcomes and the highest risk of cumulative spatial error.