EPA Consensus Project Paper: Accuracy of Photogrammetry Devices, Intraoral Scanners, and Conventional Techniques for the Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Pub Date : 2023-06-13 DOI:10.1922/EJPRD_2481Rutkunas12

V Rutkūnas, A Gedrimienė, I Mischitz, E Mijiritsky, S Huber

{"title":"EPA Consensus Project Paper: Accuracy of Photogrammetry Devices, Intraoral Scanners, and Conventional Techniques for the Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review.","authors":"V Rutkūnas, A Gedrimienė, I Mischitz, E Mijiritsky, S Huber","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2481Rutkunas12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of digital impression techniques and conventional methods for full-arch implant impressions.Methods: An electronic literature search in the databases Medline (Pubmed), Web of Science, and Embase was performed to identify in vitro and in vivo publications (between 2016 and 2022) directly comparing digital and conventional abutment-level impression techniques. All selected articles passed through the data extraction procedure according to defined parameters in inclusion and exclusion criteria. Measurements on linear, angular and/or surface deviations were performed in all selected articles.Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this systematic review. 3 articles were clinical studies and 6 studies were in vitro. Accuracy difference mean values of the trueness up to 162+/-77μm between digital and conventional techniques were reported in the clinical studies and up to 43μm in laboratory studies. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in both, in vivo and in vitro studies.Conclusions: Intraoral scanning and photogrammetric method showed comparable accuracy for registering implant positions in the full-arch edentulous cases. A tolerable implant prosthesis misfit threshold and objective misfit assessment criteria (for linear and angular deviations) should be verified in clinical studies.","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2481Rutkunas12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of digital impression techniques and conventional methods for full-arch implant impressions.

Methods: An electronic literature search in the databases Medline (Pubmed), Web of Science, and Embase was performed to identify in vitro and in vivo publications (between 2016 and 2022) directly comparing digital and conventional abutment-level impression techniques. All selected articles passed through the data extraction procedure according to defined parameters in inclusion and exclusion criteria. Measurements on linear, angular and/or surface deviations were performed in all selected articles.

Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for this systematic review. 3 articles were clinical studies and 6 studies were in vitro. Accuracy difference mean values of the trueness up to 162+/-77μm between digital and conventional techniques were reported in the clinical studies and up to 43μm in laboratory studies. Methodological heterogeneity was observed in both, in vivo and in vitro studies.

Conclusions: Intraoral scanning and photogrammetric method showed comparable accuracy for registering implant positions in the full-arch edentulous cases. A tolerable implant prosthesis misfit threshold and objective misfit assessment criteria (for linear and angular deviations) should be verified in clinical studies.

查看原文本刊更多论文

EPA共识项目文件:全弓种植体印模的摄影测量装置、口内扫描仪和传统技术的准确性:系统综述。

目的:本系统综述的目的是评估和比较全弓种植体印模的数字印模技术和传统方法的准确性。方法:在Medline (Pubmed)、Web of Science和Embase数据库中进行电子文献检索，以识别体外和体内出版物(2016年至2022年)，直接比较数字和传统基台级印模技术。所有入选的文章均按照纳入和排除标准中定义的参数进行数据提取。在所有选定的文章中测量线性、角度和/或表面偏差。结果:9项研究符合纳入标准，入选本系统综述。临床研究3篇，体外研究6篇。据报道，在临床研究中，数字技术与传统技术的准确度差均值高达162+/-77μm，在实验室研究中，准确度差均值高达43μm。在体内和体外研究中均观察到方法学上的异质性。结论:口腔内扫描和摄影测量方法对全牙弓无牙病例的种植体定位具有相当的准确性。一个可容忍的假体不匹配阈值和客观的不匹配评估标准(线性和角度偏差)应在临床研究中验证。

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

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.