SynthesisClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
Photogrammetry Versus Intraoral Scanning in Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Segmented Intraoral Scanning With a Palatal Marker for Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Article
- Titanium Base-Free Multi-Unit Abutment Connections: A Critical Review of Prosthetic Screw Design, Biomechanical Behavior, and Clinical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Management of a Staged Approach in an Implant-Supported Complete-Arch Fixed Dental Prosthesis (ISCFDP) With a Long Term, Long Span Fixed Provisional Prosthesis, Leveraging a Full Digital Approach: A Case Report.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Clinical study of free folded fibular flap reconstruction combined with implant placement for restoration of mandibular defects and occlusal relationships.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes of Digital Versus Conventional Impressions for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of digital versus conventional impression techniques for dental implant placement.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
statement of the problemThe application of digital impressions for complete-arch implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) remains controversial, and data from a systematic review with meta-analysis comparing intraoral scanning (IOS) and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) remain limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of currently available digital technologies, specifically IOS and SPG, in capturing complete-arch implant impressions. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn electronic and manual search was conducted on May 4, 2024, across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases following PRISMA guidelines. The search targeted studies (excluding case reports) that assessed the in vivo, in vitro, or ex vivo accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete-arch implant impressions. Two investigators screened eligible studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. Accuracy was the primary outcome, including linear, angular, surface deviations, and inter-implant distance. Three meta-analyses were performed on angular deviations, trueness, and surface deviations, trueness, and precision using a random-effect model.
resultsThirteen studies (3 in vivo and 10 in vitro) met inclusion criteria, displaying methodological heterogeneity (8 analyzing surface, 3 linear, 8 angular, and 3 interimplant distance deviations). The studies evaluated seven IOS (Aoralscan 3, Carestream 3600, iTero Element 2, iTero Element 5D, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 4) and two SPG devices (PIC and ICam4D). The number of implants ranged from 4 to 8. SPG reported higher accuracy than IOS in 10 of 13 studies. One in vitro study found IOS to have higher trueness but lower precision, another in vitro study found higher accuracy with IOS, and one in vivo study showed comparable trueness. Meta-analyses of in vitro studies revealed significant differences favoring SPG in surface deviation trueness and precision, and angular deviation trueness (p < 0.05), with reported effects of 3.426, 4.893, and 1.199. SPG showed surface trueness and precision, and angular trueness mean ranges 5.18-48.74 and 0.10-5.46 μm, and 0.24°-0.80°, while IOS ranges 14.8-67.72 and 3.90-37.07 μm, and 0.28°-1.74°.
conclusionsWithin study limitations, SPG showed to be a more reliable technology than IOS for complete-arch digital implant impression, exhibiting significantly greater trueness and precision. IOS reported an angular deviation exceeding the 1° threshold required for a passive fit. Further clinical trials are required for conclusive evidence. Until then, a rigid prototype try-in is still recommended.
trial registrationCRD42024490844.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.