Alessandro Pozzi, Lorenzo Arcuri, Paolo Carosi, Andrea Laureti, Jimmy Londono, Hom-Lay Wang
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
