Affiliation:
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
Abstract
AbstractPurposeTo evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.Material and MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsPG 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.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献