Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1806935
Review Article

Accuracy of Stereophotogrammetry Technique versus Intraoral Scanners for Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Saurabh Jain 
1   Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Huda Ali Daak
2   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Lena Abdulrahman Someli
2   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Amwaj Yahya Alamer
2   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Abhishek Apratim
3   Mount Royal Dental, Mt. Forest Dr, Burlington, Ontario, Canada
,
Ruaa Mohammed Ali Akoor
2   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
,
Mohammed Ayoub
2   College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the stereophotogrammetry based dental scanners in determining complete-arch implant retained prosthesis compared to intraoral scanners (IOSs). The focused PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) directed was “Do complete arch implant (P) impressions made using stereophotogrammetry-based dental scanners (I) have the same accuracy (O) when compared to impressions made using IOS (C)?” Recommendations listed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used for structuring and reporting this review. This systematic review and meta-analysis was preregistered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) bearing the registration number CRD42024597913. To search the relevant titles, four electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched in October 2024. The inclusion criteria include research papers published up to September 2024 in English comparing the accuracy of stereophotogrammetry-based dental scanners with IOS in recording the impression of complete-arch implants. Studies conducted on animals were excluded. Also excluded were unpublished reports, theses and dissertations, and case reports. After the initial search of the selected databases, a total of 590 titles were identified. The synthesis included 13 articles for qualitative analysis, but only 8 provided comparative data for quantitative analysis, which was performed using review manager (RevMan) Version 5.4. in non-Cochrane mode. The Modified CONSORT scale was used for in vitro quality and risk-of-bias assessment, while the QUADAS-2 tool was utilized for in vivo studies. The systematic review and meta-analysis reveals that stereophotogrammetric-based dental scanners offer higher accuracy in recording complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis impressions compared to IOS. The current review and meta-analysis compared of the accuracy of stereophotogrammetry-based dental scanners with IOSs. Limitations include medium to high quality of selected studies, with most of the in vitro studies displaying a high risk of bias, high heterogeneity in the control groups, and generalizability concerns. Accuracy of dental implant impressions is influenced by the type of scanner used for scanning. Stereophotogrammetry-based dental scanners are more accurate than IOS.

Keywords

dental implants - digital impression - stereophotogrammetry - PIC dental - ICam4D - intraoral scanner - accuracy

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


Ethical Approval Statement

This systematic review and meta-analysis was preregistered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) bearing the registration number CRD42024597913.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
01 May 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Brånemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991; 6 (03) 270-276
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 100 (04) 285-291
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Tohme H, Lawand G, Eid R, Ahmed KE, Salameh Z, Makzoume J. Accuracy of implant level intraoral scanning and photogrammetry impression techniques in a complete arch with angled and parallel implants: an in vitro study. Appl Sci (Basel) 2021; 11: 9859
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 2020; 24 (02) 735-745
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Aragón ML, Pontes LF, Bichara LM, Flores-Mir C, Normando D. Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38 (04) 429-434
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Gallucci GO, Benic GI, Eckert SE. et al. Consensus statements and clinical recommendations for implant loading protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 287-290
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantology 2017; 10 (Suppl. 01) 121-138
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81 (01) 7-13
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Sahin S, Çehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001; 10 (02) 85-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 111 (03) 186-194
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28 (06) 648-653
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6 (03) 172-180
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kosago P, Ungurawasaporn C, Kukiattrakoon B. Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2023; 32 (07) 616-624
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Peampring C. Confocal 3D optical intraoral scanners and comparison of image capturing accuracy. Comput Mater Continua 2021; 66: 303-314
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Logozzo S, Zanetti E, Franceschini G. Recent advances in dental optics - Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng 2014; 54: 203-221
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016; 47 (04) 343-349
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of three dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (02) 366-380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (04) 853-862
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res 2020; 64 (02) 128-136
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Carneiro Pereira AL, Medeiros VR, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 126 (06) 749-755
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017; 61 (04) 450-459
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Patzelt SBM, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18 (06) 1687-1694
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012; 7 (08) e43312
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Özcan M, Pradíes G. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont 2017; 26 (08) 650-655
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Giménez B, Pradíes G, Martínez-Rus F, Özcan M. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30 (01) 56-64
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M. et al. Intraoral digital scans-Part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (03) 372-378
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M. et al. Intraoral digital scans: Part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (05) 575-580
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, Baba NZ. Using intraoral scanning to capture complete denture impressions tooth positions and centric relation records. Int J Prosthodont 2018; 31 (04) 377-381
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Rhee YK, Huh YH, Cho LR, Park CJ. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. J Adv Prosthodont 2015; 7 (06) 460-467
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Pinto RJ, Casado SA, Chmielewski K, Caramês JM, Marques DS. Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2024; 132 (01) 172-177
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Pozzi A, Agliardi E, Lio F, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2024; 68 (01) 172-180
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Jemt T, Bäck T, Petersson A. Photogrammetry–an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12 (04) 363-368
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Petriceks AH, Peterson AS, Angeles M, Brown WP, Srivastava S. Photogrammetry of human specimens: an innovation in anatomy education. J Med Educ Curric Dev 2018; 5: 2382120518799356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Agustín-Panadero R, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Gomar-Vercher S, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Stereophotogrammetry for recording the position of multiple implants: technical description. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28 (06) 631-636
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Gómez-Polo M, Gómez-Polo C, Del Río J, Ortega R. Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119 (04) 506-510
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Bagán L, Giménez B, Peñarrocha M. Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2014; 19 (04) e366-e371
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Revilla-León M, Rubenstein J, Methani MM, Piedra-Cascón W, Özcan M, Att W. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 129 (01) 160-165
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Zhang YJ, Qian SJ, Lai HC, Shi JY. Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 130 (02) 212-218
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125 (03) 470-478
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 129 (02) 354-362
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Sallorenzo A, Gómez-Polo M. Comparative study of the accuracy of an implant intraoral scanner and that of a conventional intraoral scanner for complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2022; 128 (05) 1009-1016
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Orejas-Perez J, Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Ortiz-Collado I, Thuissard IJ, Santamaria-Laorden A. In vivo complete-arch implant digital impressions: Comparison of the precision of three optical impression systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19 (07) 4300
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Fu XJ, Liu M, Liu BL, Tonetti MS, Shi JY, Lai HC. Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: a clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2024; 35 (08) 830-840
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Pozzi A, Carosi P, Gallucci GO, Nagy K, Nardi A, Arcuri L. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: an in vivo prospective comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023; 34 (10) 1106-1117
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health 2021; 21 (01) 636
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Cheng J, Zhang H, Liu H, Li J, Wang HL, Tao X. Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: an in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry. Clin Oral Implants Res 2024; 35 (05) 560-572
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Yan Y, Lin X, Yue X, Geng W. Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: a prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 130 (04) 564-572
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 The glossary of prosthodontic terms 2023: tenth edition. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 130 (4 Suppl. 1): e1-e3
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Tzou CH, Frey M. Evolution of 3D surface imaging systems in facial plastic surgery. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am 2011; 19 (04) 591-602 , vii
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; c; 4 (01) 1-9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Faggion Jr CM. Guidelines for reporting pre-clinical in vitro studies on dental materials. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2012; 12 (04) 182-189
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Krithikadatta J, Gopikrishna V, Datta M. CRIS guidelines (checklist for reporting in-vitro studies): a concept note on the need for standardized guidelines for improving quality and transparency in reporting in-vitro studies in experimental dental research. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17 (04) 301-304
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME. et al; QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155 (08) 529-536
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Manager R. . (RevMan) The Cochrane Collaboration Version 541, Cochrane: London UK 2020 . Accessed February 12, 2025; available at https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software
  • 56 Wulfman C, Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (02) 161-167
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019; 24 (01) e89-e95
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Rutkunas V, Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Mangano F, Gedrimiene A. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2020; 22 (02) 237-245
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Pradíes G, Ferreiroa A, Özcan M, Giménez B, Martínez-Rus F. Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants. J Am Dent Assoc 2014; 145 (04) 338-344
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Peñarrocha-Diago M, Balaguer-Martí JC, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Balaguer-Martínez JF, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Agustín-Panadero R. A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: a randomized controlled pilot clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118 (05) 596-603
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Hussein MO. Photogrammetry technology in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2023; 130 (03) 318-326
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 2018; 27 (01) 35-41
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar