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

## TL;DR

This study compares the accuracy of stereophotogrammetry-based dental scanners and intraoral scanners for complete-arch implant impressions, finding that stereophotogrammetry is more accurate.

## Contribution

The study provides a systematic review and meta-analysis showing that stereophotogrammetry-based scanners are more accurate than intraoral scanners for complete-arch implant impressions.

## Key findings

- Stereophotogrammetry-based dental scanners offer higher accuracy in recording complete-arch implant impressions compared to intraoral scanners.
- Most included studies had medium to high quality, with many in vitro studies showing a high risk of bias.
- There was high heterogeneity in control groups and concerns about generalizability.

## 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 Also excluded were unpublished reports, theses and dissertations, and case reports.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.