Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3D dental implant positions: A systematic review

Miguel Gómez-Polo; Abdul B Barmak; Rocío Ortega; Vygandas Rutkunas; John C Kois; Marta Revilla-León

doi:10.1111/jopr.13751

Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3D dental implant positions: A systematic review

J Prosthodont. 2023 Dec;32(S2):208-224. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13751. Epub 2023 Sep 8.

Authors

Miguel Gómez-Polo¹, Abdul B Barmak², Rocío Ortega³, Vygandas Rutkunas^{4

5}, John C Kois^{6

7

8}, Marta Revilla-León^{6

7

9}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
² Eastman Institute of Oral Health, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA.
³ Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, European University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
⁴ Digitorum Research Center, Vilnius, Lithuania.
⁵ Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
⁶ Kois Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
⁷ Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
⁸ Private Practice, Seattle, Washington, USA.
⁹ Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

PMID: 37591510
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13751

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.

Material and methods: A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the use of commercially available PG systems were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.

Results: A total of 14 articles were included: 3 in vivo, 6 in vitro, and 6 case report manuscripts. One clinical study evaluated trueness, another one tested precision, and the third one assessed impression time and patient and operator satisfaction. All the in vitro studies evaluated the trueness and precision of a PG system. Additionally, all the reviewed studies investigated completely edentulous conditions with multiple implants. The number of placed implants per arch among the reviewed clinical studies varied from 4 to 8 implants, while the number of implants placed on the reference casts included 4, 5, 6, or 8 implants. Not all the studies compared the accuracy of PG systems with conventional impression methods, using intraoral scanners as additional experimental groups. For the PIC system, trueness ranged from 10 to 49 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 65 μm. For the iCam4D system, trueness ranged from 24 to 77 μm and the precision value ranged from 2 to 203 μm.

Conclusions: PG systems may provide a reliable alternative for acquiring the 3D position of dental implants. However, this conclusion should be interpreted carefully, as one study reported a mean precision value of one PG system higher than the clinically acceptable discrepancy. Lower scanning time and higher patient and operator satisfaction have been reported when compared with conventional techniques. Further studies are needed to increase the evidence regarding the accuracy, scanning time, and patient and operator satisfaction of the commercially available PG systems.

Keywords: accuracy; digital impression; prosthodontics; stereophotogrammetry.

Publication types

Systematic Review

MeSH terms

Computer-Aided Design
Dental Implants*
Dental Impression Technique
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional*
Models, Dental
Patient Satisfaction
Photogrammetry

Substances

Dental Implants