立体摄影测量在种植体扫描与全无牙患者口腔内扫描中的准确性——系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.8
Carolina P Noronha, Camila Ferreira de Souza, Marília Dantas Dos Santos Oliveira, Emily V F da Silva, Newton Sesma, Márcio Katsuyoshi Mukai
{"title":"立体摄影测量在种植体扫描与全无牙患者口腔内扫描中的准确性——系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Carolina P Noronha, Camila Ferreira de Souza, Marília Dantas Dos Santos Oliveira, Emily V F da Silva, Newton Sesma, Márcio Katsuyoshi Mukai","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions by comparing photogrammetry and intraoral scanning techniques, through a systematic review and meta- analysis following the Cochrane protocol. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science until May 2024. Keywords based on the PICO question were used without time or language restrictions. In vitro studies assessing full-arch implant rehabilitations that compared photogrammetry with intraoral scanning were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quin Tool Method. Data were analyzed through meta- analysis in RevMan (Review Manager Cochrane), grouping the results into three subgroups: angle deviation (°), precision (μm), and trueness (μm). The search yielded 6348 studies; 11 met the eligibility criteria, and 7 provided sufficient data for quantitative meta-analysis. Photogrammetry demonstrated superior precision, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.03 (95% CI: -0.04, -0.02) and a high weight of 94.2%, indicating consistent evidence. For angle deviation (MD = -0.12, 95% CI: -0.16, -0.08, P < 0.00001) and trueness (MD = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.19, -0.13, P < 0.00001), the photogrammetry group also showed favorable results. Although trueness exhibited expressive mean difference values, it had a lower overall weight (5.8%). Within the limitations of this study, photogrammetry significantly improves the accuracy of full arch implant rehabilitations compared to intraoral scanning. These findings support the adoption of photogrammetry for more accurate and consistent outcomes in dental implant procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy Of Stereophotogrammetry in Implant Scanning Compared to Intraoral Scanning in Completely Edentulous Patients - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Carolina P Noronha, Camila Ferreira de Souza, Marília Dantas Dos Santos Oliveira, Emily V F da Silva, Newton Sesma, Márcio Katsuyoshi Mukai\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.9358\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions by comparing photogrammetry and intraoral scanning techniques, through a systematic review and meta- analysis following the Cochrane protocol. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science until May 2024. Keywords based on the PICO question were used without time or language restrictions. In vitro studies assessing full-arch implant rehabilitations that compared photogrammetry with intraoral scanning were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quin Tool Method. Data were analyzed through meta- analysis in RevMan (Review Manager Cochrane), grouping the results into three subgroups: angle deviation (°), precision (μm), and trueness (μm). The search yielded 6348 studies; 11 met the eligibility criteria, and 7 provided sufficient data for quantitative meta-analysis. Photogrammetry demonstrated superior precision, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.03 (95% CI: -0.04, -0.02) and a high weight of 94.2%, indicating consistent evidence. For angle deviation (MD = -0.12, 95% CI: -0.16, -0.08, P < 0.00001) and trueness (MD = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.19, -0.13, P < 0.00001), the photogrammetry group also showed favorable results. Although trueness exhibited expressive mean difference values, it had a lower overall weight (5.8%). Within the limitations of this study, photogrammetry significantly improves the accuracy of full arch implant rehabilitations compared to intraoral scanning. These findings support the adoption of photogrammetry for more accurate and consistent outcomes in dental implant procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9358\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9358","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在通过比较摄影测量和口腔内扫描技术,通过系统回顾和meta分析,根据Cochrane协议评估全弓种植体印模的准确性。在PubMed, Scopus和ISI Web of Science中进行了全面的文献检索,直到2024年5月。使用基于PICO问题的关键词,不受时间和语言的限制。评估全弓种植体康复的体外研究将摄影测量法与口内扫描法进行了比较。偏倚风险采用奎恩工具法进行评估。数据在RevMan (Review Manager Cochrane)中进行meta分析,将结果分为三个亚组:角度偏差(°)、精度(μm)和真实度(μm)。这项搜索产生了6348项研究;11例符合入选标准,7例提供了足够的数据进行定量荟萃分析。摄影测量显示出卓越的精度,平均差(MD)为-0.03 (95% CI: -0.04, -0.02),权重高达94.2%,表明证据一致。对于角度偏差(MD = -0.12, 95% CI: -0.16, -0.08, P < 0.00001)和真实度(MD = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.19, -0.13, P < 0.00001),摄影测量组也显示出良好的结果。虽然真实度表现出显著的平均差异值,但其总权重较低(5.8%)。在本研究的局限性内,与口内扫描相比,摄影测量显著提高了全弓种植体修复的准确性。这些发现支持采用摄影测量法在种植牙手术中获得更准确和一致的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Accuracy Of Stereophotogrammetry in Implant Scanning Compared to Intraoral Scanning in Completely Edentulous Patients - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions by comparing photogrammetry and intraoral scanning techniques, through a systematic review and meta- analysis following the Cochrane protocol. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science until May 2024. Keywords based on the PICO question were used without time or language restrictions. In vitro studies assessing full-arch implant rehabilitations that compared photogrammetry with intraoral scanning were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quin Tool Method. Data were analyzed through meta- analysis in RevMan (Review Manager Cochrane), grouping the results into three subgroups: angle deviation (°), precision (μm), and trueness (μm). The search yielded 6348 studies; 11 met the eligibility criteria, and 7 provided sufficient data for quantitative meta-analysis. Photogrammetry demonstrated superior precision, with a mean difference (MD) of -0.03 (95% CI: -0.04, -0.02) and a high weight of 94.2%, indicating consistent evidence. For angle deviation (MD = -0.12, 95% CI: -0.16, -0.08, P < 0.00001) and trueness (MD = -0.16, 95% CI: -0.19, -0.13, P < 0.00001), the photogrammetry group also showed favorable results. Although trueness exhibited expressive mean difference values, it had a lower overall weight (5.8%). Within the limitations of this study, photogrammetry significantly improves the accuracy of full arch implant rehabilitations compared to intraoral scanning. These findings support the adoption of photogrammetry for more accurate and consistent outcomes in dental implant procedures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信