Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 3.7 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2025-06-07 DOI:10.1111/cid.70059

Alessandro Pozzi, Lorenzo Arcuri, Paolo Carosi, Andrea Laureti, Jimmy Londono, Hom-Lay Wang

{"title":"Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Alessandro Pozzi, Lorenzo Arcuri, Paolo Carosi, Andrea Laureti, Jimmy Londono, Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.1111/cid.70059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Statement of the Problem</h3>\n \n <p>The application of digital impressions for complete-arch implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) remains controversial, and data from a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing intraoral scanning (IOS) and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) remain limited.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate and compare the accuracy of currently available digital technologies, specifically IOS and SPG, in capturing complete-arch implant impressions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>An electronic and manual search was conducted on May 4, 2024, across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases following PRISMA guidelines. The search targeted studies (excluding case reports) that assessed the in vivo, in vitro, or ex vivo accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete-arch implant impressions. Two investigators screened eligible studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. Accuracy was the primary outcome, including linear, angular, surface deviations, and inter-implant distance. Three meta-analyses were performed on angular deviations, trueness, and surface deviations, trueness, and precision using a random-effect model.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirteen studies (3 in vivo and 10 in vitro) met inclusion criteria, displaying methodological heterogeneity (8 analyzing surface, 3 linear, 8 angular, and 3 interimplant distance deviations). The studies evaluated seven IOS (Aoralscan 3, Carestream 3600, iTero Element 2, iTero Element 5D, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 4) and two SPG devices (PIC and ICam4D). The number of implants ranged from 4 to 8. SPG reported higher accuracy than IOS in 10 of 13 studies. One in vitro study found IOS to have higher trueness but lower precision, another in vitro study found higher accuracy with IOS, and one in vivo study showed comparable trueness. Meta-analyses of in vitro studies revealed significant differences favoring SPG in surface deviation trueness and precision, and angular deviation trueness (<i>p</i> < 0.05), with reported effects of 3.426, 4.893, and 1.199. SPG showed surface trueness and precision, and angular trueness mean ranges 5.18–48.74 and 0.10–5.46 μm, and 0.24°–0.80°, while IOS ranges 14.8–67.72 and 3.90–37.07 μm, and 0.28°–1.74°.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Within study limitations, SPG showed to be a more reliable technology than IOS for complete-arch digital implant impression, exhibiting significantly greater trueness and precision. IOS reported an angular deviation exceeding the 1° threshold required for a passive fit. Further clinical trials are required for conclusive evidence. Until then, a rigid prototype try-in is still recommended.</p>\n \n <p><b>Trial Registration:</b> CRD42024490844</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70059","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70059","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Statement of the Problem

The application of digital impressions for complete-arch implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) remains controversial, and data from a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing intraoral scanning (IOS) and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) remain limited.

Purpose

To evaluate and compare the accuracy of currently available digital technologies, specifically IOS and SPG, in capturing complete-arch implant impressions.

Materials and Methods

An electronic and manual search was conducted on May 4, 2024, across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases following PRISMA guidelines. The search targeted studies (excluding case reports) that assessed the in vivo, in vitro, or ex vivo accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete-arch implant impressions. Two investigators screened eligible studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. Accuracy was the primary outcome, including linear, angular, surface deviations, and inter-implant distance. Three meta-analyses were performed on angular deviations, trueness, and surface deviations, trueness, and precision using a random-effect model.

Results

Thirteen studies (3 in vivo and 10 in vitro) met inclusion criteria, displaying methodological heterogeneity (8 analyzing surface, 3 linear, 8 angular, and 3 interimplant distance deviations). The studies evaluated seven IOS (Aoralscan 3, Carestream 3600, iTero Element 2, iTero Element 5D, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 4) and two SPG devices (PIC and ICam4D). The number of implants ranged from 4 to 8. SPG reported higher accuracy than IOS in 10 of 13 studies. One in vitro study found IOS to have higher trueness but lower precision, another in vitro study found higher accuracy with IOS, and one in vivo study showed comparable trueness. Meta-analyses of in vitro studies revealed significant differences favoring SPG in surface deviation trueness and precision, and angular deviation trueness (p < 0.05), with reported effects of 3.426, 4.893, and 1.199. SPG showed surface trueness and precision, and angular trueness mean ranges 5.18–48.74 and 0.10–5.46 μm, and 0.24°–0.80°, while IOS ranges 14.8–67.72 and 3.90–37.07 μm, and 0.28°–1.74°.

Conclusions

Within study limitations, SPG showed to be a more reliable technology than IOS for complete-arch digital implant impression, exhibiting significantly greater trueness and precision. IOS reported an angular deviation exceeding the 1° threshold required for a passive fit. Further clinical trials are required for conclusive evidence. Until then, a rigid prototype try-in is still recommended.

Trial Registration: CRD42024490844

查看原文本刊更多论文

摄影测量与口内扫描在全弓数字种植印模中的对比：系统回顾和荟萃分析

数字印模在全牙弓种植固定义齿（FDP）中的应用仍然存在争议，并且来自比较口内扫描（IOS）和立体摄影测量（SPG）的meta分析系统综述的数据仍然有限。目的评估和比较目前可用的数字技术，特别是IOS和SPG在捕获全弓种植体印模方面的准确性。材料和方法根据PRISMA指南，于2024年5月4日对PubMed、Embase和Cochrane CENTRAL数据库进行了电子和人工检索。搜索目标研究（不包括病例报告），评估IOS和SPG用于全弓植入物印模的体内、体外或离体准确性。两名研究者使用QUADAS-2工具筛选符合条件的研究。准确性是主要结果，包括线性、角度、表面偏差和种植体间距离。采用随机效应模型对角度偏差、真实度、表面偏差、真实度和精度进行了三项荟萃分析。结果13项研究（3项体内研究，10项体外研究）符合纳入标准，存在方法学异质性（8项分析表面偏差，3项分析线性偏差，8项分析角度偏差，3项分析种植体间距离偏差）。研究评估了7个IOS （Aoralscan 3、Carestream 3600、iTero Element 2、iTero Element 5D、Primescan、Trios 3和Trios 4）和2个SPG设备（PIC和ICam4D）。植入物数量从4到8个不等。在13项研究中，有10项报告SPG的准确性高于IOS。一项体外研究发现IOS具有较高的准确性，但精度较低，另一项体外研究发现IOS具有较高的准确性，一项体内研究显示出类似的准确性。体外研究的meta分析显示，SPG在表面偏差真实性和精度以及角偏差真实性方面存在显著差异（p < 0.05），报告效应分别为3.426、4.893和1.199。SPG的表面真实度和精度均值为5.18 ~ 48.74 μm和0.10 ~ 5.46 μm，角真实度均值为0.24°~ 0.80°；IOS的表面真实度均值为14.8 ~ 67.72 μm和3.90 ~ 37.07 μm，角真实度均值为0.28°~ 1.74°。结论在研究范围内，SPG技术比IOS技术更可靠，显示出更高的准确性和准确性。IOS报告的角度偏差超过了被动配合所需的1°阈值。需要进一步的临床试验来获得结论性证据。在此之前，仍然建议使用严格的原型试用。试验注册：CRD42024490844

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.