Accuracy of Stereophotogrammetry in Implant Scanning Compared to Intraoral Scanning in Completely Edentulous Patients-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clinical Snapshot

Key Findings

• P Value: P < 0.00001 for angle deviation and trueness outcomes

• Effect Size: Precision: MD = -0.03 (favoring photogrammetry); Angle deviation: MD = -0.12; Trueness: MD = -0.16

• Primary Outcome: Accuracy of full-arch implant impressions measured by precision, trueness, and angle deviation

• Nnt Or Sensitivity: High precision consistency with 94.2% weight across studies

• Confidence Interval: Precision: 95% CI (-0.04, -0.02); Angle deviation: 95% CI (-0.16, -0.08); Trueness: 95% CI (-0.19, -0.13)

Clinical Application

Requires investment in photogrammetry equipment and training; may not be available in all practices Technology assessment needed for TGA approval and potential PBS coverage; aligns with digital dentistry initiatives in Australian dental education Completely edentulous patients requiring full-arch implant-supported prostheses

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions by comparing photogrammetry and intraoral scanning (IOS) techniques through a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Cochrane protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to 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 to IOS were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quin Tool Method. Data were analyzed through metaanalysis in RevMan (Cochrane), grouping the results into three subgroups: angle deviation, precision (μm), and trueness (μm). RESULTS: The search yielded 6,348 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. The results for angle deviation were MD = -0.12 (95% CI: -0.16, -0.08, P < .00001), and for trueness the results were MD = -0.16 (95% CI: -0.19, -0.13, P < .00001). The photogrammetry group also showed favorable results. Although trueness exhibited expressive MD values, it had a lower overall weight (5.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, photogrammetry significantly improves the accuracy of fullarch implant rehabilitations compared to IOS. These findings support the adoption of photogrammetry for more accurate and consistent outcomes in dental implant procedures.

References

1. 1.Noronha, C. P., Ferreira de Souza, C., Dantas Dos Santos Oliveira, M., Silva, E. V. F. da, Sesma, N., & Mukai, M. K. (2026). Accuracy of stereophotogrammetry in implant scanning compared to intraoral scanning in completely edentulous patients-A systematic review and meta-analysis. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9358