Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3D dental implant positions: A systematic review.
accuracy
digital impression
prosthodontics
stereophotogrammetry
Journal
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
ISSN: 1532-849X
Titre abrégé: J Prosthodont
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9301275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
21
05
2023
accepted:
25
06
2023
medline:
4
12
2023
pubmed:
18
8
2023
entrez:
17
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants. 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. 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. 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.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Case Reports
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
208-224Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists.
Références
Bergin JM, Rubenstein JE, Mancl L, Brudvik JS, Raigrodski A. An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:243-51.
Weinberg SM, Scott NM, Neiswanger K, Brandon CA, Marazita ML. Digital three-dimensional photogrammetry: evaluation of anthropometric precision and accuracy using a Genex 3D camera system. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2004;41:507-18.
Cerasoni JN, do Nascimento Rodrigues F, Tang Y, Hallett EY. Do-It-Yourself digital archaeology: introduction and practical applications of photography and photogrammetry for the 2D and 3D representation of small objects and artefacts. PLoS One 2022;17:e0267168.
Torkan M, Janiszewski M, Uotinen L, Baghbanan A, Rinne M. Photogrammetric method to determine physical aperture and roughness of a rock fracture. Sensors (Basel) 2022;22:4165.
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;119:506-10.
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;28:631-36.
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;125:470-78.
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;129:160-65.
Wulfman C, Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:161-67.
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2020;29:660-78.
Schmidt A, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022;33:573-85.
Paratelli A, Vania S, Gómez-Polo C, Ortega R, Revilla-León M, Gómez-Polo M. Techniques to improve the accuracy of complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:844-54.
Revilla-León M, Kois DE, Kois JC. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: operator factors. J Esthet Restor Dent 2023;35:230-40.
Revilla-León M, Kois DE, Kois JC. A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: part 2-Patient factors. J Esthet Restor Dent 2023;35:241-49.
Li Z, Huang R, Wu X, Chen Z, Huang B, Chen Z. Effect of scan pattern on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions with two intraoral scanners. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37:731-39.
Gómez-Polo M, Cascos R, Ortega R, Barmak AB, Kois JC, Revilla-León M. Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023;34:591-01.
Revilla-León M, Subramanian SG, Özcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner. J Prosthodont 2020;29:107-13.
Ochoa-López G, Cascos R, Antonaya-Martín JL, Revilla-León M, Gómez-Polo M. Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans. J Dent 2022;121:104138.
Revilla-León M, Sicilia E, Agustín-Panadero R, Gómez-Polo M, Kois JC. Clinical evaluation of the effects of cutting off, overlapping, and rescanning procedures on intraoral scanning accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.10.017
Revilla-León M, Quesada-Olmo N, Gómez-Polo M, Sicilia E, Farjas-Abadia M, Kois JC. Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: an in vivo study. J Dent 2021;115:103851.
Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:755-61.
Al Hamad KQ, Al-Kaff FT. Trueness of intraoral scanning of edentulous arches: a comparative clinical study. J Prosthodont 2023;32:26-31.
Chen Y, Zhai Z, Watanabe S, Nakano T, Ishigaki S. Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners. J Dent 2022;124:104220.
Pattamavilai S, Ongthiemsak C. Accuracy of intraoral scanners in different complete arch scan patterns. J Prosthet Dent 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.026
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;64:128-36.
Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C. Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2021;13:107-16.
Laohverapanich K, Luangchana P, Anunmana C, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S. Different implant subgingival depth affects the trueness and precision of the 3D dental implant position: a comparative in vitro study among five digital scanners and a conventional technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;36:1111-120.
Gómez-Polo M, Sallorenzo A, Ortega R, Gómez-Polo C, Barmak AB, Att W, et al. Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans. J Prosthet Dent 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.018
Gómez-Polo M, Barmak AB, Kois JC, Álvarez F, Ortega R, Gómez-Polo C.et al. Influence of the implant scan body bevel location, implant angulation and position on intraoral scanning accuracy: an in vitro study. J Dent 2022;121:104122.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Critical appraisal checklist for quasi-experimental studies (non-randomized experimental studies). Accessed April 30, 2020: https://joannabriggs.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/JBI_Quasi-Experimental_Appraisal_Tool2017_0.pdf
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;118:596-03.
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;10:636.
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;128:1009-16.
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(7):616-24.
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;19:4300.
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;129:354-62.
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:e366-71.
Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Pradíes G, Gomar-Vercher S, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Maxillary full-arch immediately loaded implant-supported fixed prosthesis designed and produced by photogrammetry and digital printing: a clinical report. J Prosthodont 2017;26:75-81.
Sánchez-Monescillo A, Sánchez-Turrión A, Vellon-Domarco E, Salinas-Goodier C, Prados-Frutos JC. Photogrammetry Impression Technique: a Case History Report. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:71-73.
Sánchez-Monescillo A, Hernanz-Martín J, González-Serrano C, González-Serrano J, Duarte S Jr. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique. Quintessence Int 2019;50:288-93.
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;130:212-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.035
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 Implantol 2017;10:121-38.
Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:543-49.
Moslemion M, Payaminia L, Jalali H, Alikhasi M. Do type and shape of scan bodies affect accuracy and time of digital implant impressions? Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2020;28:18-27.
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 20896-1:2019. Dentistry-Digital impression devices-Part 1: Methods for assessing accuracy. Accessed 02-01-20. https://www.iso.org/standard/69402.html
Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:374-92.
Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Akulauskas M, Fehmer V, Sailer I, Jegelevicius D. In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32:1444-54.